DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17811890 application filed July 12, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on February 23, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21 and 23 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 7, 13 and 22 acknowledged.
Claim Interpretations
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation “a third portion disposed within the first portion and separated from the pedestal”. Claim 15 recites the limitation “a third portion entirely disposed within the first portion and entirely separated from the pedestal”. Claim 23 recites “the edge ring further comprises a seal member, the third portion is sealed within the first portion and separated from the pedestal by the seal member, and the seal member and the first portion comprise a same material.” (all emphases added). It is noted that the limitation in Claim 15 implies that there is a possibility that the third portion partially separated from the pedestal. According to Wiktionary dictionary, the term “separated” means “detached; not connected or joined”. For the purpose of examining this will be interpreted as the meaning of this term. It is noted that separate components may be positioned adjacent and physically contact, but is detached and not joined, each other; thus are separated from each other, as evidenced by Koshimizu (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200185193) Koshimizu discloses that “(a)s shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the focus ring FRD has a first annular part FR1 and a second annular part FR2. The first annular part FR1 and the second annular part FR2 are separated from each other” ([0097], emphasis added). Fig. 7A and 7B clearly show the first annular part FR1 and the second annular part FR2 are separate components that physically contact each other.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sasaki et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200194239), hereinafter “Sasaki”, in view of Molla et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190013242), hereinafter “Molla”--Claims 1, 4: Sasaki teaches a method of treating a substrate, comprisingloading a substrate W onto an electrostatic chuck 25 in a process chamber, wherein an edge ring 30 is disposed at the peripheral of the electrostatic chuck 25 ([0005], Fig. 1);pumping down the chamber by using vacuum pumps ([0016])supplying a RF power to the electrostatic chuck 25 to generate a plasma ([0017-0021]); Sasaki further teaches that the edge ring 30 comprises a cavity 50 (Fig. 3) to adjust the impedance of the edge ring with respect to the RF power, in order to balance the state of the plasma on the wafer and the state of the plasma on the edge ring to suppress nonuniformity ([0034-0035]), wherein the cavity 50 may be connected to a cavity 51 on the electrostatic chuck 25 (Fig. 6, [0056-0057]), wherein the cavity 50 is not locate directly above a supply hole for heat transfer gas so that the supply hole is not in communication with the cavity ([0053, 0060]) to prevent abnormal discharging (Fig. 5, [0034-0054]) It is noted that the impedance of the edge ring is proportional to the capacitance generated by the RF power, which is proportional to the dielectric constant of the edge ring. Fig. 3 of Sasaki is reproduced below. It is noted that Portion 1 and Portion 2 are monolithic and comprise the same material, thus having the same dielectric constant; and that Portion 2 has a top surface lower than a top surface in Portion 1; and that Portion 3, i.e. the cavity 50, is disposed within Portion 1 and, being a vacuum, has a dielectric constant less than that of Portion 1 or 2; and that Portion 3 is separated from the electrostatic chuck 25 by Portion 4 as shown in Fig. 2B below. Since the chamber is pumped down to be vacuum it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to pump down the cavity 50 to a vacuum, which has a higher dielectric constant than the first and second portion. Sasaki further teaches that the cavity 50 is formed in the edge ring 30 in order to adjust the impedance of the edge ring 30 side ([0035]), and that the cavity 50 may be formed adjacent to the edge ring 50 (Fig. 5, [0058-0060]), and that the cavity 50 may have any shape as long as no cavity 50 is provided above a supply hole ([0055, 0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the cavity 50 such that a third top surface of the cavity 50 is between a first top surface of the first portion and a second top surface of the second portion because it’s been well established that "[W]here 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)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Sasaki further teaches that the substrate W may be a wafer, a flat panel display or a print circuit board ([0065]). Fig. 2 of Sasaki shows that a top surface of Portion 1 is about the same height as a top surface of the substrate W. Sasaki fails to teach that a top surface of Portion 1 is higher than a top surface of the substrate W. Molla, also directed to plasma treating a wafer, teaches that the wafer may have a thickness about 600 to about 800 um, and may be thinner or thicker ([0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to process a thinner wafer so that a top surface of Portion 1 is higher than a top surface of the substrate W because Sasaki discloses that a top surface of Portion 1 is about the same height as a top surface of the wafer W, and Molla teaches that a wafer may have a thickness about 600 to about 800 um, and may be thinner or thicker. Fig. 1, 2 and 6 show that, although the Portion 3 in Fig. 2 in the previous Office action may physically contact the electrostatic chuck 25, it is physically separated, i.e. detached, not shared with, from the electrostatic chuck 25. Alternately, the portions may be defined as in Fig. 2B (shown below). Accordingly Portion 3 is physically separated from the electrostatic chuck 25 by Portion 4, wherein Portion 4 may be defined as a very thin layer, such as having a thickness 1 nm or less.--Claims 2, 3: Since the distance from the plasma sheath to the top surface of the Portion 2 is greater than the distance from the plasma sheath to the top surface of the Portion 1, the second difference between the sheath potential of and the potential of Portion 2 is less than the first difference between the sheath potential of and the potential of Portion 1. Sasaki further teaches that the cavity 50 can be designed to adjust an impedance of the edge ring ([0034-0037]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size and shape of Portion 1, 2 and 3 so that the difference between the first difference and the second difference is 30-50% of the first difference because it’s been well established that "[W]here 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)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
PNG
media_image1.png
747
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
--Claim 6: It is noted that during vent up condition, the cavity 50 is open to the atmosphere, and would contain air at an atmospheric pressure.
Claims 5, 8 -12, 14-21 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sasaki and Molla as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Himori et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20060081337), hereinafter “Himori”.--Claim 5, 8, 10, 15, 19: Sasaki modified by Molla teaches the invention as above. Sasaki further teaches a horizontal magnetic field is applied in the chamber by magnet 42 (Fig. 1, [0028]), but is silent about a material that the edge ring is made of. Himori teaches that an edge ring, at a presence of a magnetic field, may be “made of a conductive material, such as silicon or SiC”, or “made of an insulative material, such as quartz”, to make plasma and etch rate more uniform ([0069]). It is apparent that the term “conductive material” is a mistype, and should be “semiconductive material” since both silicon and SiC are semiconductor. Therefore, it would be also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use an edge ring that is made of silicon or quartz in the invention of Sasaki because Sasaki is silent about a material that the edge ring is made of and Himori teaches that such material would make the plasma and etch rate more uniform.--Claim 9: Since the distance from the plasma sheath to the top surface of the Portion 2 is greater than the distance from the plasma sheath to the top surface of the Portion 1, the second difference between the sheath potential of and the potential of Portion 2 is less than the first difference between the sheath potential of and the potential of Portion 1. Sasaki further teaches that the cavity 50 can be designed to adjust an impedance of the edge ring ([0034-0037]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size and shape of Portion 1, 2 and 3 so that the difference between the first difference and the second difference is 30-50% of the first difference because it’s been well established that "[W]here 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)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claims 11, 21: It is noted that in Fig. 4(c) each of the cavities 50 is sealed by the electrostatic chuck 25.--Claims 12, 20: It is noted that during vent up condition, the cavity 50 is open to the atmosphere, and would contain air at an atmospheric pressure.--Claim 14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size and shape of Portion 1, 2 and 3 so that the thickness of Portion 3 is greater than Portion 2 and less than Portion 1 because it’s been well established that "[W]here 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)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claims 16, 17, 18: It is noted that the electric potential is adjusted from Fig. 4(b) to Fig. 4(c), which also adjusts the capacitance and surface area of the first portion.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dhindsa et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20090223810), hereinafter “Dhindsa”:--Claims 1, 2, 8: Dhindsa teaches a method of treating a substrate, comprisingloading a substrate 306 onto a stage 308 in a chamber, wherein a coupling ring 314 comprising an upper coupling ring 314a and a lower coupling ring 314b, is disposed at the peripheral of the stage as shown in the figure below ([0035]);supplying a gas to the chamber, then applying a RF power 312 to the stage to generate a plasma 304 (Fig. 3, [0032-0033, 0048]); Below is a copy of Fig. 3 of Dhindsa, with the first, second, and third portions indicated as shown.
PNG
media_image2.png
624
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted the upper coupling ring, which is monolithic, highlighted in Fig. 3 is equivalent to the edge ring recited in claim 1, wherein the first portion having a first top surface, the second portion coupled to the first portion and having a second top surface lower than the first top surface, wherein the second portion has the first dielectric constant, the first portion and the second portion are monolithic and comprise a same material, and the third portion is disposed within the first portion and is a part of a cavity 330. Dhindsa further teaches that the cavity 330 within the upper coupling ring 314a and a lower coupling ring 314b may be hermetically sealed by solder seal or glass seal ([0030, 0036-0037]). In an embodiment, Dhindsa further teaches that there may be inlet channel 326 and outlet channel 328 to transport dielectric material into and out of the cavity 330 ([0040]), wherein the dielectric material may be air, and that there may be a flow or no flow ([0041-0042]). It is noted that the coupling ring 314 reads on the edge ring recited in Claim 1. Dhindsa further teaches that the capacitance of the coupling ring 314 may be adjusted by changing the dielectric material in the cavity 330, which changes the impedance of the coupling ring 314, so that to minimize the electrical potential difference between the substrate and the hot edge ring 316 to enable uniform etching ([0027, 0038, 0060]). However, the dielectric material may be selected so that the electrical potential above a central region of the wafer is different from above the edge ring 316, i.e. HER ([0044-0045, 0061]). In an embodiment, Dhindsa teaches that the cavity 50 may be arranged to adjust the capacitance ([0062-0063], Fig. 5B). Dhindsa further teaches that “as the capacitance is being increased through the coupling ring assembly, the impedance of the coupling ring assembly is being decreased resulting in a higher RF voltage at the top surface of the coupling ring 314. Therefore, a higher plasma density may be generated in the area above the HER. On the other hand, for example, if the capacitance of the coupling ring assembly is decreased, the impedance may decrease resulting in a lower RF voltage on the top surface of the HER. Thus, the plasma density in the area above the HER may be less” ([0038-0039]). Since the cavity 330 is closer to the top surface of the second portion than to the top surface of the first portion, the top surface of the second portion has a lower capacitance, thus a lower electric potential than the top surface of the first portion. Since the third portion is air it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form electric potential that the second difference between the electric potential of the first portion and the third portion is different than, or less than, the first difference between the electric potential of the first portion and the second portion.--Claims 3, 9: It would be also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the electric voltage so that the first difference is about twice or three times the second difference since it is well established that "[W]here 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)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claims 4, 10: Since Dhindsa teaches that the dielectric material may be selected so that the electrical potential above a central region of the wafer is different than, or equal to, the electrical potential above the edge ring ([0044-0045, 0061]), it would be also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the dielectric constants so than the dielectric constant of the first portion is greater than the dielectric constant of the second portion since it is well established that "[W]here 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)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claims 6, 12: Since Dhindsa teaches that the dielectric material inside the cavity 330 may be air, and that there may be a flow or no flow ([0041-0042]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to flow air into the cavity 330 at atmospheric pressure, or to open the inlet channel 326 and outlet channel 328 to atmospheric air ambient.--Claim 19: Dhindsa teaches that the coupling ring. It is noted that air has a smaller dielectric constant than silicon.--Claim 14: Fig. 3 shows that the cavity 330 is thinner than the first portion.--Claims 11, 21, 23: Since Dhindsa teaches that the cavity 330 may be hermetically sealed between the upper coupling ring 314a and a lower coupling ring 314b ([0036-0037]), the third portion is sealed within the first portion by the lower coupling ring 314b. Dhindsa further teaches that “Coupling ring assembly 314 may be made from conductive materials such as aluminum or graphite to provide RF coupling from ESC assembly, e.g., ESC 308 and ESC lower electrode 310, to HER 316”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the upper coupling ring 314a and a lower coupling ring 314b from the same material. It is noted that the lower coupling ring 314b reads on the sealing member recited in Claim 23.
Claims 5 and 15-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dhindsa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190074162), hereinafter “Wang”:--Claims 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20: Dhindsa teaches the invention as above. Dhindsa further teaches that the coupling ring 314 further comprises a glass seal to hermetically seal the cavity 50 ([0037]), but is silent about the method of forming the seal.Wang teaches that a glass seal may be formed by providing a silicon dioxide compound on a substrate then heating the silicon dioxide compound to melt the silicon dioxide compound to adhere to the substrate and provide the seal ([0007-0010, 0049-0050]). Therefore, it would be also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to form the glass seal in the invention of Dhindsa because Dhindsa is silent about a method of forming and Wang teaches that such method would be effective. It is noted that silicon dioxide is a dielectric and comprise silicon. Dhindsa further teaches that the capacitance of the coupling ring 314 may be adjusted by changing the dielectric material in the cavity 330, which changes the impedance of the coupling ring 314, so that to minimize the electrical potential difference between the substrate and the hot edge ring 316 to enable uniform etching ([0027, 0038, 0060]). However, the dielectric material may be selected so that the electrical potential above a central region of the wafer is different from above the edge ring 316, i.e. HER ([0044-0045, 0061]). In an embodiment, Dhindsa teaches that the cavity 50 may be arranged to adjust the capacitance ([0062-0063], Fig. 5B). Dhindsa further teaches that “as the capacitance is being increased through the coupling ring assembly, the impedance of the coupling ring assembly is being decreased resulting in a higher RF voltage at the top surface of the coupling ring 314. Therefore, a higher plasma density may be generated in the area above the HER. On the other hand, for example, if the capacitance of the coupling ring assembly is decreased, the impedance may decrease resulting in a lower RF voltage on the top surface of the HER. Thus, the plasma density in the area above the HER may be less” ([0038-0039]). Since the cavity 330 is closer to the top surface of the second portion than to the top surface of the first portion, the top surface of the second portion has a lower capacitance, thus a lower electric potential than the top surface of the first portion. Since the third portion is air it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form electric potential that the second difference between the electric potential of the first portion and the third portion is different than, or less than, the first difference between the electric potential of the first portion and the second portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Ko fails to teach the amended feature “a third portion disposed within the first portion and separated from the pedestal” recited in claims 1 and 8, and the amended feature “a third portion entirely disposed within the first portion and entirely separated from the pedestal” as recited in claim 15, this argument is not persuasive. It is noted that the specification does not discloses the term “separated” nor any written support for these feature. Rather it appears that the support is derived from Fig. 1-4. According to Wiktionary dictionary, the term “separated” means “detached; not connected or joined”. For the purpose of examining this will be interpreted as the meaning of this term. It is noted that separate components may be positioned adjacent and physically contact, but is detached and not joined each other, thus are separated from each other, as evidenced by Koshimizu (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200185193) Koshimizu discloses that “(a)s shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the focus ring FRD has a first annular part FR1 and a second annular part FR2. The first annular part FR1 and the second annular part FR2 are separated from each other” ([0097], emphasis added). Fig. 7A and 7B clearly show the first annular part FR1 and the second annular part FR2 are separate components that physically contacts each other. Thus, Portion 3 is separated from the electrostatic chuck 25 since both it and the electrostatic chuck 25 are distinct entities. Fig. 2 in the previous Office action is physically separated, i.e. detached, not shared with, not connected or joined with, from the electrostatic chuck 25. Alternately, the portions may be defined as in the Fig. 2B above. Accordingly Portion 3 is physically separated from the electrostatic chuck 25 by Portion 4. For further clarification, a new ground of rejection based on Dhindsa is shown above.
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights