DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/10/2026 with an RCE filed 3/5/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 6-9 and 11-25 are pending.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are cancelled.
Claim 25 is withdrawn.
Claims 6 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 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783) in view of Johnson (US 2003/0201069), Kim (US 2015/0027875), and Koike (US 2002/0072240).
Regarding claims 6 and 24, Kitagawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1, plasma processing apparatus #10) comprising:
a chamber ([0023] and Fig. 1, container #1);
a first mounting table ([0040] and Fig. 2, base central portion #3a) including:
a first base which includes a first coolant path ([0042] and Fig. 2, inner coolant path #2e);
an electrostatic chuck on the first base ([0023] and Fig. 2, chuck #6); and
a first mounting surface (Fig. 2, surface supporting wafer W),
a focus ring which surrounds the first mounting surface ([0025] and Fig. 2, focus ring #5);
a second mounting table arranged to surround the first mounting table ([0040] and Fig. 2, base peripheral portion #3b) and which has a ring-shape ([0040]: annular), the second mounting table including:
a second base which is physically separate from the first base (see Fig. 2, spaced apart horizontally from each other, occupy different vertical positions as well) includes a second coolant path ([0042] and Fig. 2, outer coolant path #2f);
a second mounting surface (Fig. 2, surface supporting focus ring #5); and
at least one focus ring heater ([0025] and Fig. 2, heater electrode #22),
a plasma generator configured to generate plasma in the chamber and perform plasma processing of a substrate ([0023], [0026] and Fig. 1, RF power sources #10a/b for wafer W); and
a controller ([0036] and Fig. 1, controller #90), wherein the controller is configured to control the plasma processing apparatus to: (a) perform plasma processing of the substrate in a state where the second mounting table is positioned at a first position ([0023] and Fig. 1: substrate support is stationary for processing).
Kitagawa does not teach wherein the second base is physically separate from the first base in a direction perpendicular to the first mounting surface (vertical) and is vertically movable relative to the first base in the direction perpendicular to the first mounting surface, at least one elevation mechanism configured to vertically move the second mounting table relative to the first base in the direction perpendicular to the first mounting surface (vertical), the at least one elevation mechanism including: an actuator; and a rod connected to the second base and to the actuator.
However, Johnson teaches at least one elevation mechanism configured to vertically move the second mounting table relative to the first mounting table including: an actuator; and a rod connected to the second base to the actuator (Johnson – [0044] and Fig. 5B, motor #430, shaft #444 moving #200 and #210 relative to #460).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kitagawa apparatus to comprise the movable mounting table of Johnson in order to achieve desired workpiece processing uniformity (Johnson – [0049]).
Modified Kitagawa does not teach a flexible line which supplies a coolant to the second coolant path.
However, Kim teaches a flexible line which supplies a coolant to a coolant path (Kim – [0119] and Fig. 5, tube #416 connected to refrigerant tank is flexible, connected to outer portion of substrate mounting members #400).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coolant pipelines of modified Kitagawa to comprise a flexible line in order to provide effective cooling even when a member-to-be-cooled moves (Kim – [0119]).
Modified Kitagawa does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to: (b) perform plasma processing of the substrate or another substrate in a state where the second mounting table is positioned at a second position which is higher than the first position, and/or configured to move the second mounting table from a first position to a second position which is higher than the first position based on a consumption amount of the focus ring and to perform the plasma processing in a state where the second mounting table is positioned at the second position.
However, Koike teaches such a procedure (Koike – [0032]-[0045]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the controller of modified Kitagawa to enact the method of Koike in order to maintain processing uniformity (Koike – [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Kitagawa teaches wherein a thickness of the second mounting table is greater than a thickness of the electrostatic chuck (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kitagawa teaches wherein the first mounting table has a first flange (see Fig. 2, radially outer portion).
Regarding claim 12, Kitagawa teaches wherein the second mounting table is positioned on the first flange (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Kitagawa teaches wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a second flange, and at least a part of the focus ring is arranged above the second flange (Fig. 2, flange #6e).
Regarding claim 15, Kitagawa teaches wherein an outer peripheral surface of the first mounting table faces an inner peripheral surface of the second mounting table through an annular gap, and the focus ring is arranged to cover the annular gap (see Fig. 2, groove #13).
Regarding claim 16, Kitagawa teaches wherein the focus ring is supported on the second mounting surface, and a thermally conductive sheet is positioned between the focus ring and the second mounting surface ([0048] and Fig. 2, intermediate layer #18).
Regarding claim 18, Kitagawa modified by Johnson and Kim does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Koike teaches at least one measuring unit configured to measure a height of an upper surface of the focus ring (Koike – [0025] and Figs. 1-2, sensor #5), wherein the controller is configured to control a driving amount of the at least one elevation mechanism based on height information of the upper surface of the focus ring measured by the at least one measuring unit (Koike – [0025]-[0027]) so that the height of the upper surface of the focus ring with respect to an upper surface of the substrate is within a preset range (Koike – [0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the controller of modified Kitagawa to enact the method of Koike in order to maintain processing uniformity (Koike – [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Kitagawa in view of Johnson and Kim does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Koike teaches wherein the at least one elevation mechanism includes a plurality of elevation mechanisms (Koike – [0052] and Figs. 1-2, plurality of drive units #61), the plasma processing apparatus further including a plurality of height measuring units (Koike – Fig. 2, plurality of sensors #5), each of the plurality of height measuring units configured to measure a height of an upper surface of the focus ring (Koike – [0051]), wherein the controller is configured to independently control a driving amount of each elevation mechanism based on height information of the upper surface of the focus ring measured by the plurality of height measuring units so that the height of the upper surface of the focus ring with respect to the upper surface of the substrate is within a preset range (Koike – [0052]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the controller of modified Kitagawa to enact the method of Koike in order to maintain processing uniformity (Koike – [0039]).
Regarding claim 20, Kitagawa in view of Johnson and Kim does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Koike teaches wherein each of the plurality of elevation mechanisms is paired with a height measurement unit of the plurality of height measurement units, to provide a plurality of pairs with each pair including one of the elevation mechanisms and one of the height measurement units, and wherein the controller is configured to drive each elevation mechanism based on the height information from its paired height measurement unit (Koike – [0051]-[0052] and Fig. 2, sensors #5 paired with drive units #61).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the controller of modified Kitagawa to enact the method of Koike in order to maintain processing uniformity (Koike – [0039]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783), Johnson (US 2003/0201069), Kim (US 2015/0027875), and Koike (US 2002/0072240), as applied to claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 above, and further in view of Makabe (US 2010/0122774).
The limitations of claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kitagawa does not teach wherein the controller is configured to circulate a first coolant through the first coolant path and to circulate a second coolant which is different from the first coolant through the second coolant path to individually control temperatures of the first mounting table and the second mounting table.
However, Makabe teaches this feature (Makabe – [0079]-[0082] and Fig. 9, first and second paths #45a and #45b separately receive coolant).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coolant supply structure of modified Kitagawa to that of Makabe in order to create a desirable temperature distribution between a central and outer portion of the substrate support (Makabe - [0071]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783), Johnson (US 2003/0201069), Kim (US 2015/0027875), and Koike (US 2002/0072240), as applied to claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2011/0174790).
The limitations of claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kitagawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
While Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein a bottom surface of the second coolant path is positioned between a bottom surface of the first coolant path and an upper surface of the first coolant path, and within a movable range of the second mounting table, Suzuki does teach wherein the size/height of a coolant passage is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the height of a coolant passage can be selected based upon flow rate/specific heat/density of the coolant, the distance from the inlet, etc., in order to achieve a desired cooling efficiency (Suzuki – [0022], [0072], [0122]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the height of the second coolant path through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired cooling efficiency (Suzuki – [0022], [0072], [0122]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783), Johnson (US 2003/0201069), Kim (US 2015/0027875), and Koike (US 2002/0072240), as applied to claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 above, and further in view of Strang (US 2004/0129226).
The limitations of claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kitagawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Strang teaches wherein a mounting table is supported on a flange via an O-ring (Strang – [0044] and Figs. 8A-B, compliant element #670 can comprise an O-ring).
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 Kitagawa apparatus to comprise an O-ring seal as claimed in order to reduce the likelihood of structural damage to the focus ring (Strang – [0044]) or, in the case of modified Kitagawa, to protect the bottom surface of the second mounting table.
While modified Kitagawa does not explicitly teach at least two O-rings, such a difference amounts to a mere duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to provide at least one additional O-ring since it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783), Johnson (US 2003/0201069), Kim (US 2015/0027875), and Koike (US 2002/0072240), as applied to claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 above, and further in view of Wege (US 2007/0111339).
The limitations of claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kitagawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Wege teaches wherein the second mounting surface includes multiple regions (Wege – [0057] and Fig. 4, ring segments comprising #80a-d).
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 Kitagawa apparatus to comprise multiple regions in order to more accurately adjust plasma distribution (Wege – [0058]).
While Wege does not teach a plurality of heaters in said segments, the Examiner notes Kitagawa does teach a focus ring heater (see claim 6 above). As such, the only difference between the claim and the prior art is a plurality of heaters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to provide a plurality of heaters of modified Kitagawa since it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
As Wege teaches dividing the focus ring assembly into multiple segments, the only way a PHOSITA could incorporate the heater into the Wege assembly is by dividing it into parts, as well- thus meeting the limitations of the claim as a combination.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783), Johnson (US 2003/0201069), Kim (US 2015/0027875), and Koike (US 2002/0072240), as applied to claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 above, and further in view of Kellogg (US 2012/0003836).
The limitations of claims 6, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, modified Kitagawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kellogg teaches a conducting part which electrically connects a first mounting table and a second mounting table (Kellogg – [0033] and Fig. 3C, RF return straps #390).
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 Kitagawa apparatus to comprise the conducting parts of Kellogg in order to provide proper RF ground return paths between a fixed and movable member (Kellogg – [0033]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kitagawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kellogg teaches wherein the conducting part is configured to electrically connect the first mounting table and the second mounting table in both of a state where the second mounting table is at the first position and a state where the second mounting table is at the second position (Kellogg – [0033] and Fig. 3C, RF return straps #390).
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 Kitagawa apparatus to comprise the conducting parts of Kellogg in order to provide proper RF ground return paths between a fixed and movable member (Kellogg – [0033]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kitagawa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kellogg teaches wherein the conducting part comprises a flexible wiring (Kellogg – [0033] and Fig. 3C, RF return straps #390 are a flexible, flat wire).
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 Kitagawa apparatus to comprise the conducting parts of Kellogg in order to provide proper RF ground return paths between a fixed and movable member (Kellogg – [0033]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections of claims 6 and 24 (Remarks, pgs. 11-14) have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. The §103 rejections of all claims are maintained on substantially the same grounds with only minor changes to account for the most recent amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument (Remarks, pgs. 12-13), the Examiner agrees that Kitagawa alone does not teach the limitations of amended claims 6 and 24 regarding the second base “physically separate from the first base in a direction perpendicular to the first mounting surface” for at least the reasons as stated by Applicant.
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s second argument (Remarks, pgs. 13-14), however, that Johnson fails to remedy the deficiencies of Kitagawa with regards to the limitation in question.
As was noted in the Response to Arguments in the Office action dated 12/16/2025 (pg. 17, reproduced below for convenience with original emphasis):
“Regarding Johnson, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that: “the motor 430 merely moves a focus ring 200” (Remarks, pg. 13). The Examiner notes that Johnson teaches ([0028] and Fig. 5B) a movement device for a focus ring 200 and a ring electrode 210. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would seek to move the focus ring and electrode of Kitagawa, which would meet the claimed limitations of the second mounting table movement.”
As before, Applicant has ignored the fact that Johnson does not merely teach raising and lowering a focus ring 200- it also teaches wherein the supporting structure for said focus ring (in Johnson, the ring electrode 210) is raised at the same time (see at least Fig. 5B and par. [0043]) as well as a sealing member 460 with expandable bellows 468 (see Fig. 5B and par. [0044]).
As such, the Examiner submits that the combined structure of Johnson’s bellows #468, sealing member #460, shaft #448/#44, ring electrode #210, and focus ring #200 is most analogous to the “second mounting table” of the Kitagawa apparatus as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully submits, therefore, that a PHOSITA would seek to modify Kitagawa based upon Johnson in the same (or substantially similar) way as proposed above because the particular structures of Johnson are mapped to their respective physically/functionally corresponding structures of Kitagawa. The Examiner notes that the proposed modification above would result in arriving at the claimed invention without any benefit of hindsight reasoning based upon Applicant’s instant disclosure.
Applicant’s request for rejoinder of claim 25 is again noted, but is moot until such time when/if a claim is found to be allowable.
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