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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 5/4/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1, 3, 5-10, & 12-19 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 1 & 3 is/are currently amended; and claim(s) 17-19 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 § 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 18-19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18
The claim states "the radially inner surface of the annular body". It is unclear whether this is a new surface limitation and if so it has no antecedent basis or it is intended to be the radially innermost surface of the annular body from claim 1. For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “the radially innermost surface of the annular body.”
All dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 19
The claim states "a radially inner surface of the inverted “U” shape cavity" and "a radially outer surface of the inverted “U” shape cavity.” It is unclear whether these are new inner and outer surface limitations or if they are the same inner and outer surfaces from claim 18. For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “[[a]]the radially inner surface of the inverted ‘U’ shape cavity" and "[[a]]the radially outer surface of the inverted ‘U’ shape cavity.”
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 & 13-19 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 innermost 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 Ogasawara 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 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 [Yuan: Fig 4C; the inner leg inner surface is parallel the annular body inner surface].
Regarding claim 14. Ogasawara 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 [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 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 [Yuan: Fig 4C].
Regarding claim 16. Ogasawara as modified teaches 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].
Regarding claim 17. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 1, wherein: the first portion is located above the radially inner leg, the inverted "U" shape cavity, and a portion of the radially outer leg, and the second portion is located above the radially outer 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 18. Ogasawara 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 innermost surface of the annular body [Yuan: Fig 4C; a radially inner surface of 412 is parallel with the radially innermost surface of 402]; and a radially outer surface of the radially outer leg is arranged parallel to a radially outer surface of the edge ring [Yuan: Fig 4C; a radially outer surface of 414 is parallel with a radially outer surface of 402].
Regarding claim 19. Ogasawara as modified teaches the edge ring of claim 18, wherein: the radially inner surface of the inverted "U" shape cavity is defined by a radially outer surface of the radially inner leg [Yuan: Fig 4C; the radial inner surface of the U cavity (430) is the radially outer surface of 412]; and the radially outer surface of the inverted "U" shape cavity is defined by a radially inner surface of the radially outer leg [Yuan: Fig 4C; the radial outer surface of the U cavity (430) is the radially inner surface of 414].
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].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In independent claim(s) 3 none of the prior art references when cited separately or together discloses 1) "wherein a first portion of an upper surface of the annular body is parallel to a plane including a substrate and a radially inner end of the first portion extends to a radially innermost surface of the annular body,” 2) “wherein a second portion of the upper surface of the annular body slopes linearly downward at an acute angle from the first portion,” 3) “wherein the first portion of the upper surface is located radially inward of the second portion of the upper surface, “and 4) “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" and all of the other claimed features set forth in the independent claims of the present invention to be patentable in view of the best prior art of record.
Regarding claim(s) 1, the closest prior art is Ogasawara which discloses limitations 1)-3) above but fails to disclose limitation 4) listed above and the other limitations in the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments and amendments, see Pages 7-10, filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered and are not fully persuasive.
The arguments regarding the 103 rejections in view of Vishwanath et al. (US 20200234928) are withdrawn in view of the amendments and arguments.
The Applicant claims that Ogasawara cannot be modified with Yuan as the disclosure of Ogasawara already has a separate ring that is adjacent to the substrate to be processes and the ring of Yuan is a ring adjacent to the substrate and covering the edge of processing area. The Applicant claims that Ogasawara’s ring and Yuan’s ring have vastly different structures and locations and thereby cannot be combined.However the claims have no limitation specifically locating the claimed ring to be directly adjacent or in contact with the substrate. Further in the Applicant’s specification ¶5-¶10, there is a multiple edge rings with some of the them not being adjacent to the substrate. See ¶10 in regards to the Applicant’s third edge ring. The Applicant’s arguments that Ogasawara is not an edge ring are not consistent with their own disclosure. Therefore Ogasawara will be considered an edge ring. In regards to the Applicant’s assertion that Ogasawara is already well-supported and does not need the features of Yuan’s ring, Yuan teaches that Ogasawara can have the radially inner leg and it’s specific features of the claim to maintain the correct position with the structure below the ring. In other words Ogasawara’s ring is currently supported but if a person of ordinary skill in the art changes the geometry underneath the ring then the ring would need to change as well to continue to be supported. Yuan shows a structure that requires a radially inner leg.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights