CTFR 17/793,366 CTFR 87926 DETAILED ACTION Status The amendment filed 03/17/2026 has been entered. In the amendment filed 03/17/2026 claim 1, 6, and 8 were amended, claim 56-57 were newly added, and claims 2, 5, and 7 were canceled. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a radial distance (d5), which is less than one-half of a radial distance (d7) of the edge ring 167” (emphasis added) and “the radial distance (d6) is greater than or equal to one-half of the radial distance (d7) of the edge ring 167” (emphasis added) as described in the specification [0063] in Fig 9 because Fig 9 shows the opposite (i.e. Fig 9 shows d5 being more than one-half and d6 being less than one half). Applicant may amend the specification to address this objection. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation In claim 57, the term “electrode radial distance” is interpreted inclusive of a distance in the radial direction (i.e. a width or length measured along the radial direction) for the electrode, specifically the “portion of the electrode that the edge ring rests on” and the term “edge ring radial distance” is interpreted inclusive of a distance in the radial direction (i.e. a width or length measured along the radial direction) for the edge ring. This interpretation is consistent with [0063] of the instant specification. 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ impedance matching system ” in claim 1, 3-4, 6, 8-21, and 55-57 (note that “impedance matching” is the functional limitation and “system” is the generic placeholder) interpreted as an arrangement of inductors and capacitors ([0039], specifically line 15-20 of p11) and equivalents thereof. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-21, and 55-57 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. Claim 1 was amended to recite in line 28-30 “each of the plurality of support rods extending vertically through the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange within the first spacing between two adjacent electrically conductive straps ”. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to indicate that is one support rod within each first spacing between two adjacent electrically conductive straps (i.e. one rod per each first space) or if the limitation is intended to indicate that there are a plurality of support rods and where the support rods are present is located between two adjacent electrically conductive straps (i.e. the number of rods is not required to be the same as the number of first spaces). For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification and drawings, the limitation is interpreted as being directed to there are a plurality of support rods and where the support rods are present is located between two adjacent electrically conductive straps (i.e. the number of rods is not required to be the same as the number of first spaces) because the instant specification [0054] indicates there may be only 3 support rods while demonstrating far more first spaces (Fig 5). Regarding claim 57, the claim uses the term conductive but does not clarify if it is electrically or thermally conductive. For purpose of examination on the merits consistent with the instant specification, the limitation is being examined inclusive of electrically conductive gel because the instant specification recites electrically conductive gel [0063]. The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-21, and 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 was amended to recite in line 28-30 “each of the plurality of support rods extending vertically through the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange within the first spacing between two adjacent electrically conductive straps ”. As indicated in the above rejection of this claim language under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the limitation may be interpreted as indicating that (i) there is one support rod within each first spacing between two adjacent electrically conductive straps (i.e. one rod per each first space) or that (ii) there are a plurality of support rods and where the support rods are present is located between two adjacent electrically conductive straps (i.e. the number of rods is not required to be the same as the number of first spaces). The first interpretation (i) represents new matter because there is no support for the limitation of one rod per space and instead is merely support for a plurality of rods (see [0054]). The second interpretation (ii) is new matter because there is no support for the rods being located in the space (first space) between adjacent electrically conductive straps. Fig 1A-1B demonstrate the rod (201) at a different radial distance than the straps (173) such that the rods would not be between spaces between the adjacent straps. Although there is support for the straps to flex inward (Fig 10-11), there is no indication of where the rods are located. The rods may be radially inward of the straps still. Applicant has presented arguments and altered a drawing provided in the arguments (see remarks filed 3/17/2026 p 8-9) to provide an explanation of why applicant believes the rod must be located where the new claim language recites. The fact applicant must rely on altered drawings and arguments of why the position must be there further demonstrate that the instant specification as originally filed does not support the specific positioning now claimed and therefore the limitation represents new matter. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claims will be examined over the prior art (using the interpretation explained in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) in case applicant can provide persuasive evidence that the limitation is supported by the specification and drawings as originally filed. This is not an indication that such support is present. The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9 and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa (prev. presented US 2013/0133834), in view of Marakhtanov (prev. presented US 2017/0103870) and Kellogg (prev. presented US 2012/0003836) . Regarding claim 1, Dhindsa teaches a plasma processing system (Fig 1, [0035]), comprising: an electrode (22 Fig 1, note [0037] teaches it receives the RF power) having a substantially cylindrical shape defined by a top surface, a bottom surface, and an outer side surface (22 Fig 1 has the top, bottom and outer side surfaces as shown in Fig and note that [0010] establishes that structures shown contacting and surrounding it have an annular shape therefore the plate has a thickness and annular shape and is thereby substantially cylindrical in shape); a layer formed on the top surface of the electrode (electrostatic chuck 20 Fig 1) [0035], the layer (electrostatic chuck 20 Fig 1) configured to receive and support a semiconductor wafer [0035]; a radiofrequency signal generator (shown as “RF Generator(s)” in Fig 1, [0044]) electrically connected to the electrode [0044], [0037], the radiofrequency signal generator configured to generate and supply radiofrequency signals to the electrode [0044]; a fixed outer support flange formed circumscribing the outer side surface of the electrode (103 Fig 1) [0040-0041], the fixed outer support flange having a fixed spatial relationship relative to the electrode (Fig 1, [0040-0041]), the fixed outer support flange having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion extending radially outward from a lower end of the vertical portion (103 Fig 1-2, [0046]), the fixed outer support flange electrically connected to a reference ground potential (103 connected to ground as shown in Fig 2); an articulating outer support flange (102 Fig 1-2) formed circumscribing the fixed outer support flange (Fig 2), [0040-0041], [0046-0047], the articulating outer support flange having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion extending radially outward from a lower end of the vertical portion (Fig 1-2), [0046-0047], the vertical portion of the articulating outer support flange positioned concentrically outside of the vertical portion of the fixed outer support flange (Fig 1-2) [0040-0041], [0046-0047], the articulating outer support flange spaced apart from the fixed outer support flange such that the articulating outer support flange is vertically moveable (note [0047] teaching that “Part 102 can, in one embodiment, move up and down”) relative to the fixed outer support flange (Fig 2, note gap shown, [0046-0047]); and a plurality of electrically conductive straps (101 Fig 1,2), each of the plurality of electrically conductive straps having a first end portion connected to a horizontal surface of the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange and a second end portion connected to a horizontal surface of the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange (Fig 1-2, [0029], [0041-0046]), and bending in an inward facing manner (Fig 1-2) towards the vertical portion of the fixed outer support flange (Fig 1-2). Dhindsa fails to teach the electrostatic chuck 20 includes a ceramic layer and fails to teach the radio frequency signal generator(s) are electrically connected through an impedance matching system. Regarding the ceramic layer, in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing systems (abstract, Fig 1A), Marakhtanov teaches the chuck (108 Fig 1A) for mounting a substrate [0054] includes a ceramic layer on top of the electrode [0053]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa to include the ceramic layer of the chuck of Marakhtanov because Dhindsa is silent as to the material of the chuck and Marakhtanov teaches a ceramic layer for use in the plasma chamber environment [0053]. Regarding the radio frequency signal generator(s) are electrically connected through an impedance matching system, Marakhtanov teaches an impedance matching system (impedance matching circuit (IMC) 104 Fig 1A, 200 Fig 2A [0065], and IMC in any of Fig 2B-1 to Fig 5, and teaches this includes inductors and capacitors [0067] and see circuit diagrams in Fig 2B-1, 2B-2, 3B, 4B-4E). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa to include the impedance matching system (circuit) of Marakhtanov because Marakhtanov teaches controlling and manipulating impedance to perform the desired amount of processing of a layer [0003] is standard and teaches this allows for improvement and control of the uniformity of processing [0005-0006]. Dhindsa in view of Marakhtanov fails to teach each of the electrically conductive straps separated from an adjacent electrically conductive strap by a first spacing, a plurality of support rods positioned peripherally outside of the outer side surface of the electrode, the plurality of support rods spaced apart around the electrode, each of the plurality of support rods extending vertically through the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange, each of the plurality of support rods having an upper end in physical engagement with the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange within the first spacing between two adjacent electrically conductive straps , the plurality of support rods disposed between the plurality of electrically conductive straps and the vertical portion of the fixed outer support flange. Dhindsa teaches the articulating outer support flange (102 Fig 1-2) is moveable up and down [0047] but fails to teach the structure for such movement. In the same field of endeavor of plasma processing systems (abstract, Fig 1, 3A-C), Kellogg teaches a plurality of support rods (350 Fig 3B) positioned peripherally outside of the outer side surface of the electrode (Fig 3B), the plurality of support rods spaced apart around the electrode (350 Fig 3B and note 350 interfaces with 403 and Fig 4C demonstrates 3 of portion 403 spaced apart around the ring, and [0040]), each of the plurality of support rods extending vertically through the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange (Fig 3B, rod 350 extends through horizontal portion of fixed ring 340) , each of the plurality of support rods having an upper end in physical engagement with the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange (Fig 5B, [0040]), the plurality of support rods disposed between the plurality of electrically conductive straps and the vertical portion of the fixed outer support flange (straps 390 are radially outward of 340 and therefore radially outward of the support rods, also note that this represents a mere rearrangement of parts). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa to include the support rods and positioning of such rods as taught by Kellogg because Dhindsa teaches the ring may be moved up and down without teaching a specific structure for such movement and Kellogg demonstrates a structure for the movement of the moveable ring while maintaining the connection via the support straps. Regarding the each of the electrically conductive straps separated from an adjacent electrically conductive strap by a first spacing, Kellogg teaches each of the conductive straps is separated by a spacing (Fig 3C, 4A, 4C see 488 Fig 4C [0037]). Kellogg further teaches the support rods are within the first spacing between two adjacent electrically conductive straps (support rods are located at 403 Fig 4C which is between spacing between 488 Fig 4C [0040], see Fig 5B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spacing taught by Kellogg because this is a functional alternative for the positing of the straps and to incorporate the positioning of the rods between the spaces because Kellogg demonstrates this arrangement as part of the inclusion of the rods. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dhindsa in view of Marakhtanov remains as applied to claim 1 above. Dhindsa is silent as to the spacing of the conductive straps. In the same field of endeavor of plasma processing systems (abstract, Fig 1, 3A-C), Kellogg teaches that between an articulated outer support flange (400 Fig 3C [0031]) and a fixed support flange (340 Fig 3C [0032-0033]) a plurality of electrically conductive straps (390 Fig 3C [0033]) are spaced circumferentially around the rings [0033] and demonstrates the connection points being equally spaced (Fig 4A). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa to include the conductive straps substantially equally spaced around the fixed and articulating support flanges. Regarding claim 4, Dhindsa teaches the plurality of electrically conductive straps are configured to flex as the articulating outer support flange moves relative to the fixed outer support flange [0046-0047]. Regarding claim 6, Dhindsa teaches the first end portion of each of the plurality of electrically conductive straps is connected to a lower horizontal surface of the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange (see Fig 2, strap 101 is connected to 102 at a lower surface of the horizontal portion via connecting structure 104) [0042], [0046]. Regarding claim 8, Dhindsa teaches the second end portion of each of the plurality of electrically conductive straps is connected to an upper horizontal surface of the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange (Fig 1, 2, strap 101 is connected to upper surface of horizontal portion of 103 via connection 106 [0042]. Regarding claim 9, Dhindsa teaches a first clamp ring (104 Fig 2, [0042]) connected to the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange (Fig 2), the first end portions of the plurality of electrically conductive straps positioned between the first clamp ring and the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange ([0042], Fig 2), the first clamp ring securing the plurality of electrically conductive straps in physical and electrical connection with the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange ([0042], Fig 2); and a second clamp ring (106 Fig 2 [0042]) connected to the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange (Fig 2), the second end portions of the plurality of electrically conductive straps positioned between the second clamp ring and the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange [0042], the second clamp ring securing the plurality of electrically conductive straps in physical and electrical connection with the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange ([0042], Fig 2). Regarding claim 14, Dhindsa teaches 10-500 contact points and teaches the strap can have segments for each contact point [0043]. Note that the teaching of 10-500 includes values of about 6 to about 80. Regarding claim 15, Dhindsa teaches strip sections 120 (Fig 2) that are a rectangular prism shape (note bent into a C-shape still includes a rectangular prism shape when not bent) having a length, width, and thickness (Fig 2, note the three dimensional structure has these dimensions). Regarding claim 16-17, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Dhindsa further teaches a C-shroud member (13 Fig 1-2, [0036], [0044] disposed above the electrode (Fig 1-2). Dhindsa also teaches the articulating outer support flange (102 Fig 1-2) engages with the c-shroud [0044]. Dhindsa appears to demonstrate a seal disposed on an upper end of the vertical portion of the articulating outer support flange to engage with the c-shroud (Fig 4) but fails to explicitly teach a seal or that the round structure is a seal. Kellogg teaches the upper surface (401b Fig 4B) of the vertical portion (sidewall 401 Fig 4B) has a recess (415 Fig 4B) to receive an RF gasket to seal to the confinement ring (305, note this is a C-shroud as shown in Fig 3B) [0038]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa to include the RF gasket to seal and provide electrical contact between the C-shroud and the articulating outer support flange as taught by Kellogg because Kellogg teaches this arrangement ensures electrical contact between the movable ring and the C-shroud [0038]. Regarding claim 18, Dhindsa teaches a ceramic structure (“ceramic insulator ring” Fig 1), disposed between the electrode (22 Fig 1) and the fixed outer support flange (103), the ceramic structure formed to circumscribe the outer side surface of the electrode (labeled as “ring” in Fig 1). Regarding claim 19, Dhindsa teaches a quartz structure (portion 160c of 160 Fig 1-3) disposed between the ceramic structure (“ceramic insulator ring” Fig 1) and the fixed outer support flange (103 Fig 1), the quartz structure formed to circumscribe a vertical portion of the ceramic structure (see Fig 1-3, note that the lowermost portion of 160c circumscribes an upper vertical surface of the “ceramic insulator ring” shown and labeled in Fig 1 and shown unlabeled in Fig 2-3). Regarding claim 20, Dhindsa teaches an edge ring (160b Fig 3 or portion of 160c directly below and contacting 160b Fig 3) disposed between the articulating outer support flange (102 Fig 3) and the ceramic layer (shown not labeled in Fig 3, and shown as 20 in Fig 1). Regarding claim 21, Dhindsa teaches a quartz ring (upper right portion of 160c directly below 160a Fig 3) disposed between the edge ring and the articulating outer support flange (Fig 3) [0041] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa in view of Marakhtanov and Kellogg as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Sorensen (prev. presented US 2010/0089319) . Regarding claim 10, Dhindsa teaches the first clamp ring is secured to the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange (Fig 2 and [0042], note that the teaching of clamped by screws with the screw passing through or being screwed to the clamp), and wherein the second clamp ring is secured to the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange (Fig 2 and [0042], note that the teaching of clamped by screws with the screw passing through or being screwed to the clamp). Dhindsa fails to explicitly teach the attachment is bolted (i.e. secured by bolts) because Dhindsa teaches screws. It is noted that in the art of plasma processing systems, screws and bolts are often used interchangeably. Further, in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing systems (abstract, Fig 1), Sorensen teaches attachment of an RF return path using fasteners (e.g. 202 Fig 2) and teaches an RF return path may be secured by being bolted, screwed, or fastened [0051]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa to use bolts in place of the screws because Sorensen teaches it is a functional alternative for attachment [0051]. Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 10 above. In the combination as applied to claim 10, bolts are used to bolt the clamp ring to the horizontal portion of the articulating outer support flange (see rejection of claim 10 above and Dhindsa Fig 2 showing clamping structure 104) are positioned between first end portions of electrically conductive straps (see gaps 120 Fig 2 and [0042],[0052]), and wherein bolts used to bolt the second clamp ring to the horizontal portion of the fixed outer support flange (see rejection of claim 10 above and Dhindsa Fig 2 showing clamping structure 106) are positioned between second end portions of electrically conductive straps (see gaps 120 and holes in 122 Fig 2 and [0042],[0052]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-13 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa in view of Marakhtanov and Kellogg as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Tso (prev. presented US 2010/0136261) . Regarding claim 12, Dhindsa teaches the articulating and fixed support flanges are formed of a conductive material and teaches the clamps 104 and 106 are formed of a conductive material [0050] but fails to teach the material. In the same field of endeavor of plasma processing systems with an RF return strap (abstract), Tso teaches aluminum is a known material for structures in the chamber [0055] including for conductive materials of the substrate support [0058]. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aluminum as the conductive material for the articulating and fixed support flanges because Tso teaches this is an art recognized suitable material for a conductive structure of the substrate support body. Regarding the clamps, Tso teaches that the clamping bodies (232, 231 Fig 2B note these are part of the clamping assemblies 230, 229 Fig 2B) comprise aluminum as the conductive material [0073]. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aluminum as the conductive material for the clamp rings because Tso teaches this is an art recognized suitable material for a conductive structure of the clamp in an RF return ([0073], Fig 2B). Regarding claim 13, Dhindsa teaches the electrically conductive straps are formed of copper [0030] and teaches a conductive material [0043]. Tso teaches the RF return straps may be fabricated from stainless steel as an alternative to copper [0070]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa to form the straps of stainless steel instead of copper because stainless steel is also conductive and Tso teaches stainless steel is a functional alternative to copper for the RF return strap [0070]. Regarding claim 55, the combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach an azimuthal spacing between adjacent ones of the plurality of electrically conductive straps is within a range extending from 0.125 in to about 4 inches because the references fail to teach a spacing. Dhindsa does teach the number of contact points can be 10 to 500, 50 to 300 or 100 to 200, suggesting that the number of straps is variable (note this suggests the azimuthal spacing is variable). In the same field of endeavor of apparatuses with RF grounding (abstract) Tso teaches the plasma distribution can be adjusted by adjusting the location and/or spacing of the RF return straps [0077]. This indicates that the spacing is a result effective variable that impacts the plasma distribution and therefore the uniformity of substrate processing. 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). Applicant’s specification merely recites the azimuthal spacing without indicating any unexpected or superior results and therefore the claimed range appears to represent routine optimization. It is additionally noted that apparatuses may be altered for different wafer sizes from 6” diameter wafers to 18” diameter wafers (note that for an 8” diameter, 10 contact points would result in 2.5” spacing and 500 contact points would result in 0.05” spacing, for 14” diameter 10 contact points would result in 4.4” spacing and 500 contact points would result in 0.09” spacing, for 20” diameter 10 contact points would result in 6.3” spacing and 500 contact points would result in 0.13” spacing) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa in view of Marakhtanov and Kellogg as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2006/0118044 of Himori et al., hereinafter Himori . Regarding claim 56, the combination as applied to claim 20 fails to teach the edge ring rests on a portion of the electrode. In the same field of endeavor of plasma processing apparatuses (abstract) Himori teaches an edge ring (5 Fig 1) rests on a portion of the electrode (2 Fig 1, [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dhindsa and the combination to include the edge ring rests on the electrode because Himori teaches this arrangement improves etching rate [0071] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa in view of Marakhtanov, Kellogg, and Himori as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0240651 of Nagayama et al., hereinafter Nagayama . Regarding claim 57, the combination remains as applied to claim 56. The combination fails to teach a conductive gel disposed between the electrode and the edge ring, wherein the electrode contacts the conductive gel and the conductive gel contacts the edge ring, and wherein the portion of the electrode that the edge ring rests on has an electrode radial distance of between one half to three quarters of an edge ring radial distance of the edge ring itself. In the same field of endeavor of plasma processing apparatuses, Nagayama teaches conductive gel (25 Fig 2) [0027] (note [0030] teaches carbon powder which is thermally and electrically conductive) to facilitate connection between the electrode (5) and edge ring (14) (Fig 2 [0027]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gel because Nagayama teaches it improves connection. Regarding the overlap distance, this represents mere optimization of the size of the ring supporting surface and edge ring width (note [0063] of the instant specification indicates the overlap is adjustable to be more or less than half the edge ring radial width) and Himori demonstrates a similar overlap (Himori Fig 1 appears to demonstrate the overlap of the ring supporting portion of 2 is 2/3 of the ring 5 width) which would render the claimed range obvious in view of the apparent overlap demonstrated. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 in the reply filed 03/17/2026, hereinafter reply, have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the inclusion and positioning of the support rods (reply p7-10). As noted the amendments to claim 1 represent new matter and therefore the arguments presented in p 8-9 regarding why the specification must support the newly added limitations is not persuasive. The instant specification as originally filed should clearly and unambiguously support any claimed limitations. Applicant argues (reply p9) that there is no reason to incorporate the rods of Kellogg into Dhindsa because Kellogg teaches outwardly bending return straps. This is not persuasive because, as noted above, Dhindsa [0047-0052] teaches the structure may be moveable but does not disclose how and Kellogg demonstrates a structure for allowing such movement. The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p11) rely on the alleged failing of the art to render obvious the amended limitations of claim 1 which have been addressed above. Therefore these arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30. 07-40 AIA 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. 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. /MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 2 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 3 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 4 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 5 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 6 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 7 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 8 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 9 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 10 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 11 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 12 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 13 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 14 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 15 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 16 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 17 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 18 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 19 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 20 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 21 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 22 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 23 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 24 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/793,366 Page 25 Art Unit: 1716
Prosecution Insights