DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 10/14/2025 & 10/31/2025.
The Examiner notes claims 1, 3, 5-10, & 12-16 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 1, 5, & 12 is/are currently amended; claim(s) 11 is canceled without prejudice, and claim(s) 13-16 is/are newly added; all other claims are original or previously presented. Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, & 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vishwanath (US 20200234928) further in view of Yuan et al. (US 20080261800), hereinafter Vishwanath and Yuan, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. (Each claim status is listed above in the Status of Claims section) Vishwanath discloses an edge ring [230] for a plasma processing system, comprising:
an annular body [302];…,
wherein a first portion of an upper surface of the annular body is parallel to a plane including a substrate [Fig 3B; 322 is parallel to the plane that 112 is on] and a radially inner end of the first portion extends to a radially inner surface of the annular body [Fig 3B; 322 extends to radially inner surface 316], and
wherein a second portion of the upper surface of the annular body slopes linearly downward at an acute angle from the first portion [Fig 3B; 328 slopes linearly downward from 322 at an acute angle],…,
wherein the first portion of the upper surface is located radially inward of the second portion of the upper surface [Fig 3B; 322 is located radially inward of 328].
Vishwanath may not explicitly disclose a radially inner leg extending from the annular body; a radially outer leg extending from the annular body, wherein a bottom surface of the radially outer leg is lower than a bottom surface of the radially inner leg or the second portion is located radially outwardly of the radially inner leg or wherein a bottom surface of the edge ring defines an inverted “U” shape cavity.
However Vishwanath further teaches that an edge ring can have a radially inner leg extending from the annular body [Figure 1 of this office action & Fig 4A]; a radially outer leg extending from the annular body [Figure 1 of this office action & Fig 4A].
The device made obvious as set forth above is such that wherein a bottom surface of the edge ring defines an inverted “U” shape cavity [Fig 4A].
PNG
media_image1.png
320
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular body as disclosed by Vishwanath to have a radially inner leg extending from the annular body; a radially outer leg extending from the annular body as taught by Vishwanath for the purpose of interlocking the edge ring to other parts of the substrate processing supports particularly a moveable ring that can move the edge ring to be at a desired position [Vishwanath: ¶49] and different embodiments of Vishwanath can be used with other features taught by Vishwanath, see ¶59 & ¶68.
Viswanath does not explicitly teach positional relationship between the inner and outer leg positions relative to the position of the second portion of the upper surface. These features are discussed separately from each other and could be rearranged such that the second portion is located radially outwardly of the radially inner leg.
However Viswanath teaches that the first portion [322] and the flat surface after the second portion [Fig 3B; 326 is the portion after 328] can have their dimensions modified such that 328 is moved closer to the outer edge, 310, than the inner edge, 308 [Fig 3B; ¶47; 322 can be 5mm in length, 326 can be 2 mm, and A, the distance from the inner edge to the beginning of 322 can be a max of 10 mm] this can place the second portion outward of the inner leg. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second portion of the upper surface as taught by Vishwanath as modified to have the second portion be located radially outwardly of the radially inner leg as further taught by Vishwanath as modified as pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it has been held that shifting the position or placement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device has no patentable significance, it considered to be matters of design/engineering choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious. In the instant case rearranging upper surfaces in relation to the recess on the bottom of Vishwanath’s edge ring would not modify the operation of the upper surface in regards to the substrate, plasma process. The recess (inner and outer legs) of Vishwanath could be moved as desired to match different designs of the other components of the plasma processing system.
Vishwanath as modified may not explicitly disclose wherein a bottom surface of the radially outer leg is lower than a bottom surface of the radially inner leg.
However Yuan discloses an edge ring with an annular body with inner and outer legs [Fig 4A-4C; 402 has and inner leg (412) and an outer leg (414); wherein a bottom surface of the radially outer leg is lower than a bottom surface of the radially inner leg [Fig 4C; ¶58; the outer leg (414) extends further from 402 than the inner leg (412) and therefore has a lower bottom surface].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer leg as taught by Vishwanath as modified to have a bottom surface of the radially outer leg is lower than a bottom surface of the radially inner leg as taught by Yuan for the purpose of matching the geometry of the other structures around the edge ring where the outer leg extends farther down to maintain the correct position with the structure below it. The Applicant has no criticality of the outer leg extending longer in their Specification. Only the Applicant’s Figures 14A-14C show the outer leg extending farther down than the inner leg.
Regarding claim 3. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein a third portion of the upper surface is parallel to the plane including the substrate and is located radially outward of the second portion of the upper surface [Vishwanath: Fig 3B; 326 is parallel to 112 and is radially outward from 328].
Regarding claim 5. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the upper surface begins to slope downward at a horizontal distance h from a radially outer edge of the inverted "U" shape cavity, and wherein the horizontal distance h is in a range from 0 mm to 10 mm [Vishwanath: ¶47-¶48; the distance to 328 is the total length of 322 (0.2 mm to 5 mm) plus "A" (0.1 mm to 10 mm); therefore 328 can begin at 0.3 mm to 15 mm which reads on the claimed range].
Regarding claim 6. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein a thickness t of the annular body is in a range from 0.5 mm to 10 mm [Vishwanath: ¶47-¶48; the thickness of 302 is the thickness of 230 (¶48; 3.5 mm-25 mm) minus the height 322 is above 326 (¶47; 0.2 mm – 3 mm); therefore the thickness t of 302 is 0.5 mm – 24.8 mm].
Regarding claim 7. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 6, wherein the second portion of the upper surface slopes downward by a vertical distance of d that is greater than or equal to 20% of a height of an overall thickness of the edge ring [Vishwanath: ¶47-¶48; the vertical height 322 is above 326 is 0.2 mm – 3 mm and the overall thickness of 230 is 3.5 mm – 25 mm (i.e. 20% of the height is 0.7 mm – 5 mm); therefore d can be greater than or equal to 20% of a height of 230].
Regarding claim 8. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 6, wherein the second portion of the upper surface slopes downward by a vertical distance of d, and wherein d is greater than or equal to t [Vishwanath: ¶47-¶48; d can be 0.2 mm – 3 mm (height between 322 & 326) and t can be 0.5 – 24.8 mm (thickness of 302); therefore if d=3 and t=3, then d=t].
Regarding claim 9. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 8, wherein d is in a range from t to 3t [Vishwanath: ¶47-¶48; d can be 0.2 mm – 3 mm (height between 322 & 326) and t can be 0.5 – 24.8 mm (thickness of 302); therefore if d=1 & t=1 to d=3 &t=1, then d can be in a range from t to 3t].
Regarding claim 10. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein second portion of the upper surface slopes linearly at an acute angle [Vishwanath: Fig 3B].
Regarding claim 12. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein: a downward slope end position of the second portion of the upper surface is at a horizontal distance h from a radially outer edge of the inverted "U" shape cavity [Vishwanath: Fig 3B; ¶47; the end position of 328 is where 328 meets 326 and is a distance “h” from the radial outer edge (310)]; and a horizontal distance between a downward slope start position of the second portion and the downward slope end position of the second portion is greater than the horizontal distance h [Vishwanath: Fig 3B; ¶47-¶48; if 322 and 326 are at the minimum values (0.2 mm and 2 mm, respectively) the horizontal length of the 328 (the second portion) is maximized and would be greater than the distance from the end position of 328 and the outer edge (310); it is noted that this distance is just the length of 326].
Regarding claim 13. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein a radially inner surface of the radially inner leg is arranged parallel to the radially inner surface of the annular body [Vishwanath: Fig 3B & 4A; the vertical 316 of Fig 3B is parallel to 308].
Regarding claim 14. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein the radially inner end of the first portion is located above the radially inner leg [Vishwanath: Fig 3B & 4A].
Regarding claim 15. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein the radially inner surface of the radially inner leg extends parallel to an axial direction [Vishwanath: Fig 3B & 4A; 308 extends parallel to an axial direction].
Regarding claim 16. Vishwanath as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the radially outer leg is thicker in a radial direction than the radially inner leg.
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the radially outer leg as taught by Vishwanath as modified to be thicker in a radial direction than the radially inner leg since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the edge ring of Vishwanath as modified would not operate differently with the thickness and since the thickness of the radially outer leg and the radially inner leg is intended to locate the inverted “U” shape cavity. The edge ring would function appropriately have the claimed thickness. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the thickness difference claimed.
Claim(s) 1 & 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGASAWARA et al. (JP 2009224385 A) further in view of Yuan et al. (US 20080261800), hereinafter Ogasawara and Yuan, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. Ogasawara discloses an edge ring [44] for a plasma processing system, comprising:
an annular body [Fig 3B; Abstract; 44 is a ring and has an annular body];
…; and
a radially outer leg extending from the annular body [Fig 3B; 44 has a leg extending from the annular body at a radially outer portion of the body],…
wherein a first portion of an upper surface of the annular body is parallel to a plane including a substrate [Fig 3B; The top portion of 44 has a first portion of the upper surface that is parallel to W] and a radially inner end of the first portion extends to a radially inner surface of the annular body [Fig 3B], and
wherein a second portion of the upper surface of the annular body slopes linearly downward at an acute angle from the first portion [Fig 3B],…,
wherein the first portion of the upper surface is located radially inward of the second portion of the upper surface [Fig 3B],… and
wherein a bottom surface of the edge ring defines an inverted “U” shape cavity.
Ogasawara may not explicitly disclose a radially inner leg extending from the annular body;, wherein a bottom surface of the radially outer leg is lower than a bottom surface of the radially inner leg or the second portion is located radially outwardly of the radially inner leg or and wherein a bottom surface of the edge ring defines an inverted “U” shape cavity
However Yuan discloses an edge ring with an annular body with inner and outer legs [Fig 4A-4C; 402 has and inner leg (412) and an outer leg (414)]; wherein a bottom surface of the radially outer leg is lower than a bottom surface of the radially inner leg [Fig 4C; ¶58; the outer leg (414) extends further from 402 than the inner leg (412) and therefore has a lower bottom surface], and the second portion is located radially outward of the radially inner leg [As the second portion extends to the end of the annular body the radially inner leg will be more inwardly located that the second portion of the upper surface], and wherein a bottom surface of the edge ring defines an inverted “U” shape cavity [Fig 4C; 430 is a “U” shaped cavity defined by the bottom surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer leg as taught by Vishwanath as modified to have a radially inner leg extending from the annular body, a bottom surface of the radially outer leg is lower than a bottom surface of the radially inner leg, and a bottom surface of the edge ring defines an inverted “U” shape cavity as taught by Yuan for the purpose of matching the geometry of the other structures around the edge ring where the outer leg extends farther down to maintain the correct position with the structure below it [Yuan: ¶58]. The Applicant has no criticality of the outer leg extending longer in their Specification. Only the Applicant’s Figures 14A-14C show the outer leg extending farther down than the inner leg.
Regarding claim 13. Ogasawara discloses the edge ring of claim 1, wherein a radially inner surface of the radially inner leg is arranged parallel to the radially inner surface of the annular body [Yuan: Fig 4C; the inner leg inner surface is parallel the annular body inner surface].
Regarding claim 14. Ogasawara discloses the edge ring of claim 1, wherein the radially inner end of the first portion is located above the radially inner leg [Ogasawara as modified may not explicitly disclose this limitation however pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it has been held that shifting the position or placement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device has no patentable significance, it considered to be matters of design/engineering choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious].
Regarding claim 15. Ogasawara discloses the edge ring of claim 1, wherein the radially inner surface of the radially inner leg extends parallel to an axial direction [Yuan: Fig 4C].
Regarding claim 16. Ogasawara discloses the edge ring of claim 1, wherein the radially outer leg is thicker in a radial direction than the radially inner leg [Ogasawara: Fig 3B and Yuan: Fig 4C].
Claim(s) 5-10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGASAWARA et al. (JP 2009224385 A) in view of Yuan further in view of Vishwanath (US 20200234928), hereinafter Vishwanath.
Regarding claim 5. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the second portion of the upper surface begins to slope downward at a horizontal distance h from a radially outer edge of the inverted "U" shape, and wherein the horizontal distance h is in a range from 0 mm to 10 mm.
However Vishwanath teaches an edge ring with a first and second portion of the upper surface, wherein the second portion of the upper surface begins to slope downward at a horizontal distance h from a radially outer edge of the inverted "U" shape, and wherein the horizontal distance h is in a range from 0 mm to 10 mm [Vishwanath: ¶47-¶48; the distance to 328 is the total length of 322 (0.2 mm to 5 mm) plus "A" (0.1 mm to 10 mm); therefore 328 can begin at 0.3 mm to 15 mm which reads on the claimed range].
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the second portion of the upper surface as taught by Ogasawara as modified to slope downward at a horizontal distance h from a radially outer edge of the inverted "U" shape wherein the horizontal distance h is in a range from 0 mm to 10 mm since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the edge ring would not operate differently with the claimed distance.
Regarding claim 6. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness t of the annular body is in a range from 0.5 mm to 10 mm.
However Vishwanath teaches wherein a thickness t of the annular body is in a range from 0.5 mm to 10 mm [Vishwanath: ¶47-¶48; the thickness of 302 is the thickness of 230 (¶48; 3.5 mm-25 mm) minus the height 322 is above 326 (¶47; 0.2 mm – 3 mm); therefore the thickness t of 302 is 0.5 mm – 24.8 mm].
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the annular body as taught by Ogasawara as modified to have a thickness t in a range from 0.5 mm to 10 mm since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the edge ring would not operate differently with the claimed distance.
Regarding claim 7. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 6, wherein the second portion of the upper surface slopes downward by a vertical distance of d that is greater than or equal to 20% of a height of an overall thickness of the edge ring [Claim 7 is rejected for the same or similar reasons as claim 6].
Regarding claim 8. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 6, wherein the second portion of the upper surface slopes downward by a vertical distance of d, and wherein d is greater than or equal to t [Claim 8 is rejected for the same or similar reasons as claim 6].
Regarding claim 9. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 8, wherein d is in a range from t to 3t [Claim 9 is rejected for the same or similar reasons as claim 6].
Regarding claim 10. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein second portion of the upper surface slopes linearly at an acute angle [Ogasawara: Fig 3B].
Regarding claim 12. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein: a downward slope end position of the second portion of the upper surface is at a horizontal distance h from a radially outer edge of the inverted "U" shape cavity; and a horizontal distance between a downward slope start position of the second portion and the downward slope end position of the second portion is greater than the horizontal distance h [Claim 12 is rejected for the same or similar reasons as claim 6].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see Pages 5-6, filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 8/19/2025 are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments and amendments, see Pages 6-10, filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered and are not fully persuasive.
The arguments regarding the 102 rejections in view of Riker (US 20140190822) are withdrawn in view of the amendments and arguments.
The Applicant claims that Vishwanath’s sloped surface is on the wrong side of the edge ring and points to Fig 4A of Vishwanath and 318 of 4A.However the embodiment of Vishwanath that is used to teach the sloped surface is Fig 3B and the surface 322 of Vishwanath. Fig 4A of Vishwanath is only used to teach the “U” shaped cavity being defined by a bottom surface of the edge ring.
The Applicant claims that if Vishwanath would be used with the other parts of the plasma processing system shown in the Applicant’s figures 14A-14C there would be increased distances or gaps to the other rings beneath the edge ring.However matching the geometry of the other structures around the edge ring where the outer leg extends farther down to maintain the correct position with the structure below it is common practice and would obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced all the embodiments of Vishwanath with modifies the dimensions of the edge ring to match the surrounding structure as well as Yuan’s disclosure.
The Applicant claims that the Examiner has modified Vishwanath without providing any support for making these modification.The Examiner request the Applicant point out specific instances of this, as each modification has been given a reason for performing the modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723