DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the reply filed 4/21/2026 and the RCE filed 5/1/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 and 8-28 are pending.
Claims 5, 14, 17-21, and 23 are withdrawn.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 22, and 24 are currently amended.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub. 2019/0244793) in view of Kim (US Pub. 2014/0034240) and Sugiyama (US Patent 6,733,620), with Kalnin (US Pub. 2018/0233327) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Chen teaches a plasma processing chamber for confining plasma within ([0028] and Fig. 1, chamber #102), the plasma processing chamber includes a lower electrode for supporting a substrate ([0030] and Fig. 1, conductive baseplate/lower electrode #110 supporting substrate #108) and an upper electrode disposed over the lower electrode ([0028] and Fig. 1, upper electrode #104), the plasma processing chamber comprising a confinement ring ([0038] and Fig. 2, confinement shroud #244) for use in a plasma processing chamber ([0028] and Fig. 1, processing chamber #102), including: an upper horizontal section extending between an upper inner radius and an outer radius of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2); a lower horizontal section extending between a lower inner radius and the outer radius of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2), the lower horizontal section having an extension section that extends along the lower inner radius (see Fig. 2), the lower horizontal section including a plurality of slots ([0036] and Fig. 1, one or more slots #184); and a vertical section disposed between the outer radius and an inside radius of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2), the vertical section integrally connects the upper horizontal section to the tower horizontal section of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2) to define a C-shaped structure (see Fig. 2).
Chen does not teach wherein a top surface of the lower horizontal section provides for an angle down toward the lower inner radius to define a slope along the top surface (emphasis showing distinguishing feature).
However, Kim teaches this feature (Kim – [0070]-[0074] and Figs. 1-2, 5: baffle #5010 can have curved/straight sloping surface).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Modified Chen does not teach wherein each slot includes a first end curved portion, a second end curved portion, and a linear portion connecting the first end curved portion and the second end curved portion, a major axis of each linear portion radially extending along the lower horizontal section of the confinement ring.
However, Sugiyama teaches this limitation (Sugiyama – either Fig. 10B or Fig. 11, curved left and right portions and straight connecting middle portions of slits #120a; see Fig. 3 for general arrangement of slits).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the slots of modified Chen to comprise those of Sugiyama as a matter of simple substitution for one known element for another (shape of the slots) to obtain predictable results (Sugiyama – C1, L46-51, and C10, L44-62). See MPEP 2143.
As was cited before, Kalnin teaches the slot shape functions to adjust the gas conductance therethrough to minimize processing non-uniformity (Kalnin – [0031]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Chen teaches wherein a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section is flat (see Fig. 2).
Chen does not teach that a first thickness of the lower horizontal section near the inside radius is greater than a second thickness of the lower horizontal section at the lower inner radius (by about 10% to about 40%).
However, Kim teaches this feature (Kim – [0070]-[0074] and Figs. 1-2, 5: baffle #5010 with thinner inner portion and larger outer portion; the breadth of the word “about” can reasonably be met by the structure depicted by Kim, even considering that the drawings are not necessarily to scale).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches wherein the angle defines a slope along the top surface of the lower horizontal section, the slope is between about 0.200 and about 10 measured from a horizontal x-axis (Kim – Fig. 1, inclination of #500 begins at 00 at an inner portion and increases to an unspecified larger angle, which would easily encompass the claimed range even though the drawings are not necessarily to scale).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen does not teach wherein a first height defined between the bottom surface of the upper horizontal section and the top surface of the lower horizontal section near the inside radius is less than a second height defined between the bottom surface of the upper horizontal section and the top surface of the lower horizontal section at the lower inner radius of the confinement ring (Chen teaches two parallel flat surfaces, thus no difference in height).
However, Kim teaches this feature (Kim – [0070]-[0074] and Figs. 1-2, 5: baffle #5010 can have curved/straight sloping surface).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claims.
However, Sugiyama teaches these limitations (Sugiyama –Fig. 10B, curved left and right portions and straight connecting middle portions of slits #120a; see Fig. 3 for general arrangement of slits).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the slots of modified Chen to comprise those of Sugiyama as a matter of simple substitution for one known element for another (shape of the slots) to obtain predictable results (Sugiyama – C1, L46-51, and C10, L44-62). See MPEP 2143.
As was cited before, Kalnin teaches the slot shape functions to adjust the gas conductance therethrough to minimize processing non-uniformity (Kalnin – [0031]).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 24, modified Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claims.
However, Sugiyama teaches these limitations (Sugiyama –Fig. 11, curved left and right portions and straight connecting middle portions of slits #120a; see Fig. 3 for general arrangement of slits).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the slots of modified Chen to comprise those of Sugiyama as a matter of simple substitution for one known element for another (shape of the slots) to obtain predictable results (Sugiyama – C1, L46-51, and C10, L44-62). See MPEP 2143.
As was cited before, Kalnin teaches the slot shape functions to adjust the gas conductance therethrough to minimize processing non-uniformity (Kalnin – [0031]).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Chen teaches wherein the upper inner radius is greater than the lower inner radius (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches wherein the extension section extends vertically downward at the lower inner radius (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Chen teaches wherein the confinement ring is made from one of silicon, or polysilicon, or silicon carbide, or boron carbide, or ceramic, or aluminum ([0036]: silicon, polysilicon).
Regarding claim 27, Chen teaches wherein the extension section is integral with the lower horizontal section, the vertical section and the upper horizontal section of the confinement ring, the extension section configured to extend vertically below a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, Chen teaches wherein the upper electrode is electrically grounded and the lower electrode is connected to a radio frequency power source through a corresponding match network ([0031]: RF generating system #120 with generator #122 and matcher #124 can output RF power to the lower electrode with the upper electrode RF grounded).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub. 2019/0244793), Kim (US Pub. 2014/0034240), and Sugiyama (US Patent 6,733,620), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 22, and 24-28 above, and further in view of Kellogg (US 2015/0044873)
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 22, and 24-28 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kellogg teaches wherein the top surface of the upper horizontal section includes a plurality of holes (Kellogg – [0018] and Fig. 3L/M, bosses #338), each hole of the plurality of holes is configured to receive a portion of a fastener means (Kellogg – [0018] and Fig. 3L/M, are internally threaded) defined on a bottom surface of the upper electrode for coupling the confinement ring to the upper electrode of the plasma processing chamber (Kellogg – [0018]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Chen apparatus to include the hole/fastening means of Kellogg in order to securely couple a confinement ring and an upper support structure (Kellogg – [0031]).
Examiner’s note: the claim is drawn to a confinement ring “for use in a plasma processing chamber” (preamble, claim 1). As such, the plasma processing chamber and/or any of its components are not structurally limiting of the claim since it merely embodies an intended use of the claimed confinement ring. As such, claim 15 merely requires the plurality of holes configured to receive a portion of a fastener means.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub. 2019/0244793), Kim (US Pub. 2014/0034240), and Sugiyama (US Patent 6,733,620), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 22, and 24-28 above, and further in view of Dhindsa (US 2017/0330735).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 22, and 24-28 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, modified Chen does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Dhindsa teaches wherein the extension section of the lower horizontal section is configured to rest on a radio frequency gasket defined on a top surface of a lower electrode of the plasma processing chamber (Dhindsa – [0023] and Fig. 3B, RF gasket #350).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to configure the modified Chen apparatus to rest on a radio frequency gasket as claimed in order to create an RF return path outside the chamber volume to prevent plasma unconfinement (Dhindsa – [0037]).
Examiner’s note: the claim is drawn to a confinement ring “for use in a plasma processing chamber” (preamble, claim 1). As such, the plasma processing chamber and/or any of its components are not structurally limiting of the claim since it merely embodies an intended use of the claimed confinement ring. As such, claim 16 merely requires that the bottom surface of the lower horizontal section be capable of resting on anything. In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, however, the Examiner has supplied the Dhindsa reference to meet the presumed intent of the claim.
The Applicant is advised that claim 16 can be rejected over the relied-upon prior art without Dhindsa. This alternative rejection should be considered as included herewith despite not being set forth in particular, as the Examiner’s explanation above explains the position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 11 to eliminate indefinite claim language, thus the §112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as set forth herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Sugiyama remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
The Examiner additionally notes that US Patent 12,494,352 to Yoon has a more recent priority date than the instant application (4/29/2021 for ‘352 compared to 2/12/2021 for the instant) and appears to show a substantially similar invention (Figs. 2-4 of ‘352). The ‘352 patent is cited herein as relevant art to the instant application for future searching considerations and clarity of the record, but does not qualify as prior art against the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights