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 .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 12/01/2025.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 10, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al (US 2019/0203353).
Regarding claim 1:
Jeon teaches a focus ring unit (coupling ring, 120), as a focus ring used in a substrate processing device (deposition apparatus, 1) [fig 2 & 0019, 0023], comprising: a plurality of parts (R1/R2) with different conditions of an exposed surface (may have different thicknesses and in example embodiments, an angle and position of the inclined surface may be variously changed) facing a plasma space in a circumferential direction, and wherein each of the plurality of parts (R1/R2) defines a localized plasma-facing region of the focus ring unit (120) [fig 3-10 & 0037-0038, 0042, 0045].
The claim limitations “wherein each of the plurality of parts is configured to correspond to an inspection area located at an edge region of a substrate, the inspection area including a middle portion of the exposed surface of the corresponding part in the circumferential direction” and “configured to interact with a distinct edge portion of the substrate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements [MPEP 2115]. The claim is directed to the focus ring unit. The substrate is NOT part of the focus ring unit.
Regarding claim 2:
Jeon teaches the plurality of parts (R1/R2) include an inclined surface (120IW) having an inclination angle with respect to a radial direction of the focus ring (see fig 5), and a first surface (upper surface of 125) connected to an outer end of the inclined surface (120IW) in the radial direction and parallel to the radial direction (see fig 5), and the exposed surface includes the inclined surface (120IW) and the first surface (upper surface of 125) [fig 3-10 & 0042].
Regarding claim 3:
Jeon teaches a condition of the exposed surface includes at least one of the inclination angle of the inclined surface and a height by the inclined surface (may have different thicknesses and in example embodiments, an angle and position of the inclined surface may be variously changed) [fig 3-10 & 0037-0038, 0042].
Regarding claim 4:
Jeon teaches the plurality of parts include a second surface (horizontal surface below SUB) connected to an inner end of the inclined surface (120IW) in the radial direction and parallel to the radial direction (see fig 5) [fig 3-10 & 0042].
Regarding claim 5:
Jeon teaches a condition of the exposed surface includes a length of the second surface in the radial direction or a distance from a center of the focus ring to a starting position of the inclined surface (position of the inclined surface may be variously changed – see fig 5 vs fig 10) [fig 3-10 & 0042].
Regarding claim 6:
Jeon teaches the plurality of parts include a protrusion protruding inward in a radial direction and an upper surface parallel to the radial direction at a position spaced apart in a height direction from the protrusion (see fig 5), and a condition of the exposed surface includes at least one of a distance from a center of the focus ring to the protrusion and a height from the protrusion to the upper surface (may have different thicknesses and in example embodiments, an angle and position of the inclined surface may be variously changed) [fig 3-10 & 0037-0038, 0042]
Regarding claim 7:
Jeon teaches a part in which a condition of a plurality of exposed surfaces is changed in neighboring parts (see fig 6) [fig 6 & 0044].
Regarding claims 8-9:
Jeon teaches in the plurality of parts, the condition of the exposed surface is changed at the same first angle from a center of a ring (angles θ1 formed by both ends of the protrusions 125 may be equal to each other) [fig 4 & 0040]; and wherein the first angle is 10° or more and 180° or less (see fig 4) [fig 4].
Regarding claim 10:
Jeon teaches an inner diameter and an outer diameter of the focus ring (120) are constant (see fig 3 and 6) [fig 3, 6].
Regarding claim 14:
Jeon teaches the plurality of parts (R1/R2) are formed in a plurality of groups, and in the parts of the respective groups, only one of the conditions of the exposed surface is different (see fig 3) [fig 3 & 0037].
Regarding claim 15:
Jeon teaches the plurality of parts (R1/R2) are formed in a plurality of groups, and in one of the groups, conditions of a plurality of exposed surfaces are different in neighboring parts (see fig 6) [fig 6 & 0044].
Regarding claim 16:
Jeon teaches a focus ring unit (coupling ring, 120) used in a substrate processing apparatus (deposition apparatus, 1) [fig 2 & 0019, 0023], comprising: a plurality of parts (R1/R2) including an inclined surface (120IW) having an inclined angle with respect to a radial direction of the focus ring unit (see fig 5), a first surface (upper surface of 125) connected to an outer end of the inclined surface (120IW) in a radial direction and parallel to the radial direction (see fig 5), and a second surface (horizontal surface below SUB) connected to an inner end of the inclined surface (120IW) in the radial direction and parallel to the radial direction (see fig 5) [fig 3-10 & 0042], wherein the plurality of parts (R1/R2) are configured to have a first angle from a center of the focus ring unit (angles θ1 formed by both ends of the protrusions 125 may be equal to each other) and connected to form the focus ring unit [fig 4 & 0040], the plurality of parts (R1/R2) are different from a neighboring parts in a condition of an exposed surface facing a plasma space (see fig 3 and 6), and the condition of the exposed surface includes at least one of an inclination angle of the inclined surface, a height by the inclined surface, and a length of the second surface in a radial direction (may have different thicknesses and in example embodiments, an angle and position of the inclined surface may be variously changed) facing a plasma space in a circumferential direction, and wherein each of the plurality of parts (R1/R2) defines a localized plasma-facing region of the focus ring unit (120) [fig 3-10 & 0037-0038, 0042, 0045].
The claim limitations “wherein each of the plurality of parts is configured to correspond to an inspection area located at an edge region of a substrate, the inspection area including a middle portion of the exposed surface of the corresponding part in the circumferential direction” and “configured to interact with a distinct edge portion of the substrate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements [MPEP 2115]. The claim is directed to the focus ring unit. The substrate is NOT part of the focus ring unit.
Regarding claim 17:
Jeon teaches the first angle is 10° or more and 180° or less (see fig 4) [fig 4].
Regarding claim 18:
Jeon teaches a minimum distance from the center of the focus ring unit (120) to the second surface in the part is constant (see fig 3 and 6) [fig 3, 6].
Regarding claim 19:
Jeon teaches the plurality of parts (R1/R2) are formed in a plurality of groups, and in the plurality of parts of a respective group of the plurality of groups, only one of the conditions of the exposed surface is different (see fig 3) [fig 3 & 0037].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 8-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2019/0203353) as applied to claims 1-7, 10, 14-16, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Bera et al (US 2005/0224180).
The limitations of claims 1-7, 10, 14-16, and 18-19 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 17:
Jeon is considered to teach the limitations of claims 8-9 and 17 [see rejections set forth above].
Alternatively, Bera teaches in the plurality of parts (plates, 208a-c), the condition of the exposed surface is changed at the same first angle from a center of a ring (sweep angle of 45 degrees) [fig 2A-2B & 0030, 0032-0033]; and wherein the first angle is 10° or more and 180° or less (sweep angle of 45 degrees) [fig 2A-2B & 0032].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of parts of Jeon to have the same first angle, as in Bera, to optimize the pressure and flow in a particular chamber as desired [Bera – 0032].
10. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2019/0203353) as applied to claims 1-10 and 14-19 above, and further in view of Ikari et al (US 2020/0194237).
The limitations of claims 1-10 and 14-19 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 11-12:
Jeon does not specifically disclose exposed surfaces of the plurality of parts are divided by a boundary surface, and the plurality of parts are assembled; and wherein the plurality of parts include a coupling portion coupled to a neighboring part.
Ikari teaches exposed surfaces of the plurality of parts are divided by a boundary surface (abutting surfaces, 37), and the plurality of parts are assembled (integrated in a ring shape by joining abutting surfaces 37) [fig 2 & 0030]; and wherein the plurality of parts include a coupling portion (64a) coupled to a neighboring part [fig 7B & 0057].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of parts of Jeon to be assembled by including a coupling portion coupled to a neighboring part, as in Ikari, to allow for reduction in cost because the parts can be cut from a smaller ingot while providing an increase in mechanical strength [Ikari - 0047, 0064].
11. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2019/0203353) as applied to claims 1-10 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2005/0061447).
The limitations of claims 1-10 and 14-19 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 13:
Jeon does not specifically disclose a lower ring connected to the plurality of parts, wherein the plurality of parts include a coupling portion coupled to the lower ring.
Kim teaches a lower ring (33) connected to the plurality of parts (parts of focus ring 50), wherein the plurality of parts include a coupling portion (90) coupled to the lower ring (33) [fig 3 & 0046].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of parts of Jeon to further include a coupling portion coupled to a lower ring, as in Kim, to lengthen the overall path at the bottom surface of the focus ring unit to minimize occurrence of problems such as electric discharge due to an accumulation of the by-products [Kim – 0052].
12. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (US 2010/0041240) in view of Jeon et al (US 2019/0203353).
Regarding claim 20:
Tsujimoto teaches a substrate processing device (plasma etching apparatus, 1) [fig 1 & 0017] comprising: a chamber (2) providing a processing space therein [fig 1 & 0019]; an electrostatic chuck (electrostatic chuck, 11) disposed within the chamber (2) and supporting a substrate (W) fig 1 & 0021]; a focus ring unit (15) disposed to surround an outer circumference of the electrostatic chuck (11) [fig 1 & 0023]; and a plasma generating unit (40) generating plasma in the chamber (2) [fig 1 & 0029].
Tsujimoto does not specifically disclose the focus ring unit is the focus ring unit according to claim 1.
Jeon teaches a focus ring unit (coupling ring, 120) [fig 2 & 0019, 0023], comprising: a plurality of parts (R1/R2) with different conditions of an exposed surface (may have different thicknesses and in example embodiments, an angle and position of the inclined surface may be variously changed) facing a plasma space in a circumferential direction [fig 3-10 & 0037-0038, 0042, 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the focus ring unit of Tsujimoto to be the focus ring unit of Jeon to uniformly transmit electric fields [Jeon – 0027, 0036].
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 10-13 and 16-19 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 10-13 and 16-19 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 10, 16, and 19.
14. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-10 and 14-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 8-9, 11-13, 17, and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jeon fails to teach the amended features of claims 1 and 16. Specifically, the regions of Jeon are not configured to interact with distinct substrate-edge portions.
In response, it is noted that said claim limitations are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements [MPEP 2115]. The claim is directed to the focus ring unit. The substrate is NOT part of the focus ring unit.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fink (US 2004/0040940), Huang et al (US 2008/0245479), and Mankidy et al (US 2025/0149306) teach a focus ring comprising a plurality of parts with different conditions [8, 5, and 2, respectively].
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896