DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
The amendment filed 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-20 are pending. Claim 19-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention. In the amendment filed 02/17/2026, claims 1 and 9 were amended and claims 2 and 11-12 were canceled. No claims were newly added. Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-18 are under examination on the merits.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/30/2025.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umotoy (prev. presented US 5,766,365) in view of Arai (prev. presented US 2007/0026148).
Regarding claim 1, Umotoy teaches an edge ring (24 Fig 3) comprising: a ring body (24 Fig 3-5) having an axis parallel to a first direction (vertical direction of Fig 3-4); and a plurality of protrusions (81, 85 Fig 5) provided at an inner side surface of the ring body and protruding toward the axis (Fig 4-5), the plurality of protrusions being spaced apart from each other in a circumference direction of the edge ring (col 6, ln 24-30), wherein a first distance between the axis and a first point on the inner side surface of the ring body between two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions is larger than a second distance between the axis and a second point on the inner side surface of the ring body at which a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is provided (Fig 5 and col 6, ln 10-30, note the distance to the protrusion is shorter than the distance to ring 24, consistent with the measurements shown in the instant application Fig 4). Regarding the ring body is configured to overlap at least one purge hole in a stage supporting a substrate such that gas is passed through a space between the substrate and at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions, Umotoy teaches the edge ring (24 Fig 3) is configured to overlap at least one purge hole in a stage supporting a substrate such that gas is passed through a space between the substrate and at least one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions (Fig 4 see purge gas hole 86 and purge gas flow space 83 Fig 4). While Umotoy teaches this limitation, it is noted that this limitation is directed to the manner in which the edge ring is intended to be employed and does not limit the edge ring structure because the claim is directed to an edge ring and not to a substrate support including the edge ring. Umotoy fails to teach the ring body comprises a portion on the inner side surface of the ring body in which a third distance between the axis and a measurement point continuously decreases as the measurement point is changed from a third point which is equidistant from two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions, to a fourth point at which a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is provided. In the same field of endeavor of edge rings, Arai teaches a ring body (110 Fig 8) comprises a portion on the inner side surface of the ring body in which a third distance between the axis and a measurement point continuously decreases as the measurement point is changed from a third point which is equidistant from two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions, to a fourth point at which a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is provided (see Fig 8 and note the rounded recesses). 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 the ring of Umotoy to include the shape as taught by Arai because Arai teaches this is an alternative shape to an edge ring with discrete protrusions (Fig 4) which is the shape taught by Umotoy.
Regarding claim 4, Umotoy teaches 6 protrusions (col 6, ln 25). Arai demonstrates 8 protrusions (Fig 4, 6, 8, 10), but teaches there may be any number that is 3 or more [0062]. This range is inclusive of 12 protrusions. 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 Umotoy to include 12 protrusions because Arai teaches the number is adjustable [0062].
Regarding claim 9, Umotoy teaches a substrate processing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a stage (61 Fig 3) configured to support a substrate (23 Fig 3); and an edge ring provided on the stage (24 Fig 3-5), wherein the edge ring comprises: a ring body having an axis parallel to a first direction (24 Fig 3, first direction is perpendicular direction of Fig 3); and a plurality of protrusions provided at an inner side surface of the ring body (81,85 Fig 3-5) and protruding inward from the ring body (Fig 5), the plurality of protrusions being spaced apart from each other in a circumference direction of the edge ring (col 6, ln 24-30). Umotoy fails to teach a first thickness of the ring body, in a radial direction of the ring body, in a first region between two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions is smaller than a second thickness of the ring body, in the radial direction of the ring body, in a second region where a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is provided, wherein, between two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions, the inner side surface of the ring body comprises a curved portion which centered at an eccentric axis, and wherein the eccentric axis is spaced apart from the axis in an outward direction. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), Arai teaches that as an alternative to just protrusions on an annular consistent thickness body (embodiment of Fig 4 which is analogous to the embodiment of Umotoy), the ring may have variable thickness (embodiment of Fig 8) such that a first thickness of the ring body, in a radial direction of the ring body, in a first region between two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions is smaller than a second thickness of the ring body, in the radial direction of the ring body, in a second region where a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is provided (Fig 8). 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 the shape of the ring of Umotoy to include the changing thickness because this represents a mere change of shape and Arai demonstrates the shape is an obvious alternative. In the combination as applied and specifically Arai as applied in the combination, between two adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions, the inner side surface of the ring body comprises a curved portion (Fig 8). Regarding the curved portion being centered at an eccentric axis, and wherein the eccentric axis is spaced apart from the axis in an outward direction, the curved portion of Arai does not visibly have a center axis but this represents a mere change in shape of the curve of the curved portion of Fig 8 of Arai. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the curved portion between protrusions. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). A change of shape to have the curved portion have an axial center results in a center that is eccentric and spaced apart from the axis in an outward direction (see Fig 8 of Arai).
Regarding claim 10, Umotoy remains as applied to claim 9 above. Umotoy fails to teach a number of the plurality of protrusions is 12. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), Arai demonstrates 8 protrusions (Fig 4, 6, 8, 10), but teaches there may be any number that is 3 or more [0062]. This range is inclusive of 12 protrusions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Umotoy to include the higher number of protrusions because Arai teaches the number is adjustable [0062].
Regarding claim 13, the Umotoy remains as applied to claim 9 above. Umotoy further teaches the stage comprises a plurality of purge holes (86 Fig 4) provided below the edge ring (Fig 4, the holes 86 are below edge ring 24), wherein each purge hole of the plurality of purge holes is exposed at a top surface of the stage (Fig 4), and where the plurality of purge holes are spaced apart from each other in the circumference direction (col 5, ln 55-67).
Regarding claim 14, Umotoy remains as applied to claim 13 above. Umotoy teaches 8 purge gas outlets (col 5, ln 60-67). Regarding specifically 6 purge holes, this appears to represent mere optimization of the number of purge gas holes to achieve the desired backside edge gas flow dynamics to protect the edge from deposition or process the edge using an edge processing gas without having too much flow to negatively affect the substrate processing beyond the edge effects. 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).
Regarding claim 16, the Umotoy remains as applied to claim 13 above. Umotoy further teaches the ring body is spaced apart from the plurality of purge holes in an upward direction (Fig 4, ring body 24 spaced from holes 86) such that the plurality of purge holes, which is exposed by the top surface of the stage (Fig 4), faces a bottom surface of the ring body (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 17, the Umotoy remains as applied to claim 13 above. Umotoy further teaches a stage body (61 Fig 3 and see stage body in Fig 4), in which the plurality of purge holes is provided (86 Fig 4); and a heater provided in the stage body (54 Fig 4, col 5, ln 30-35).
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umotoy in view of Arai as applied to claim 1, 9, and 13 and further in view of KR 2014-0045806 of Lee, hereinafter Lee (prev. presented KR 2014-0045806, citing machine translation provided 12/03/2025).
Regarding claim 3, Umotoy in view of Arai remains as applied to claim 1 above. Umotoy fails to teach the ring body comprises a ceramic material because Umotoy teaches the ring (24) is formed of a nickel-chromium-iron alloy (col 3, ln 45-50). In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor processing with an edge ring (32, 33 Fig 2 and abstract, and translation p3, paragraphs 1-3), Lee teaches the ring body is formed of ceramic (translation p6, paragraph 6). 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 Umotoy to include the ring body is ceramic because Lee demonstrates this as a functional alternative material for the body of the edge ring.
Regarding claim 5, Umotoy in view of Arai remains as applied to claim 1 above. Umotoy fails to teach an upper ring on the ring body, wherein a fourth distance between the upper ring and the axis is smaller than a fifth distance between each of the plurality of protrusions and the axis. In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor processing with an edge ring (32, 33 Fig 2 and abstract, and translation p3, paragraphs 1-3), Lee teaches an upper ring (33 Fig 2-3, translation p6, paragraph 6) on the ring body (32 Fig 2-3, translation p6, paragraph 6). 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 Umotoy to include the upper ring of Lee because Lee teaches this structure enables covering the edge region of the substrate (translation p7, paragraph 4) which allows protecting it from being processed when such protection is desired. The combination includes forming the upper ring (top ring) of Lee on the ring body of Umotoy and therefore results in a fourth distance between the upper ring (distance between innermost portion of 333 of ring 33 Fig 3, translation p7, paragraph 4) and the axis is smaller than a fifth distance between each of the plurality of protrusions (protrusions of ring body of Umotoy) and the axis because the protrusion of Umotoy are intended to be radially outward of the substrate edge whereas the upper ring (top ring) of Lee is intended to be radially inward of the substrate edge (see Lee Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Lee as applied in the combination teaches the upper ring (33 Fig 2-3) comprises: an upper ring body (outer region of 33 Fig 2-3); and an inner ring provided in an inner region of the upper ring body (inner ring portion including 333 Fig 3), and wherein a height of the inner ring decreases in an inward direction (see height of 333 in Fig 3 of Lee).
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Lee as applied in the combination teaches the upper ring (33 Fig 2-3) has a portion of the bottom surface exposed (Fig 3, portion under 333) at an inner region of the ring body (ring body of Umotoy and not the analogous ring body 32 of Lee).
Regarding claim 15, Umotoy in view of Arai remains as applied to claim 13 above. Umotoy fails to teach the edge ring further comprises an upper ring on the ring body, and wherein a first distance between the upper ring and the axis is smaller than a second distance between each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions and the axis such that a bottom surface of the upper ring is exposed in an inner region of the ring body. In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor processing with an edge ring (32, 33 Fig 2 and abstract, and translation p3, paragraphs 1-3), Lee teaches an upper ring (33 Fig 2-3, translation p6, paragraph 6) on the ring body (32 Fig 2-3, translation p6, paragraph 6). 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 Umotoy to include the upper ring of Lee because Lee teaches this structure enables covering the edge region of the substrate (translation p7, paragraph 4) which allows protecting it from being processed when such protection is desired. The combination includes forming the upper ring (top ring) of Lee on the ring body of Umotoy and therefore results in a first distance between the upper ring (distance between innermost portion of 333 of ring 33 Fig 3, translation p7, paragraph 4) and the axis is smaller than a second distance between each of the plurality of protrusions (protrusions of ring body of Umotoy) and the axis because the protrusion of Umotoy are intended to be radially outward of the substrate edge whereas the upper ring (top ring) of Lee is intended to be radially inward of the substrate edge (see Lee Fig 2). Regarding a bottom surface of the upper ring is exposed in an inner region of the ring body, Lee as applied in the combination teaches the upper ring (33 Fig 2-3) has a portion of the bottom surface exposed (Fig 3, portion under 333) at an inner region of the ring body (ring body of Umotoy and not the analogous ring body 32 of Lee).
Regarding claim 18, Umotoy in view of Arai remains as applied to claim 9 above. Umotoy fails to teach a shower head spaced apart from the stage in an upward direction. Umotoy teaches a gas manifold to inject gas into the chamber that is positioned above the substrate (col 1, ln 35-42) but fails to teach it is a showerhead. Lee teaches a gas injector (20 Fig 1) above the substrate support is a showerhead type (translation p6, paragraph 1). 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 Umotoy to include a shower head spaced apart from the stage in an upward direction because Umotoy teaches a gas injection manifold in this position and Lee also teaches a gas injector (20 Fig 1) in this position and teaches it is a showerhead (translation p6, paragraph 1). This represents a simple substitution of one known element (showerhead of Lee) for another (gas manifold of Umotoy) for the same purpose (injecting processing gas into the chamber above the substrate).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umotoy in view of Arai and Lee as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Haberecht (prev. presented US 2020/0294794).
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Umotoy in view of Arai and Lee fails to teach the fourth distance between the upper ring and the axis is smaller than 150 mm, and each of the first distance and the second distance is larger than 150 mm because Umotoy and Lee fail to teach dimensions. In the same field of endeavor of edge rings for a substrate processing apparatus (Fig 5 and abstract), Haberecht teaches the substrate preferably has a diameter of 300 mm [0029]. 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 Umotoy and Umotoy in view of Lee to be sized to accommodate a 300 mm diameter substrate because Haberecht teaches this is a known substrate dimension size and is a preferred substrate dimension size [0029]. In Umotoy in view of Lee, this modification results in the fourth distance (which overlaps the substrate edge) being smaller than 150 mm to the center axis (aka radius) because the radius of the substrate is 150 mm and results in the first and second distances being larger than 150 mm because both are positioned radially outward of the substrate.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umotoy in view of Arai as applied to claim 1 and 9 above and further in view of Fodor (prev. presented US 2005/0078953).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Umotoy in view of Arai remains as applied to claims 1 and 9 above. Umotoy teaches 6 protrusions and therefore fails to teach 12 protrusions. In the same field of endeavor of an edge ring (abstract, Fig 4A), Fodor teaches that the protrusions used to center a substrate (protrusions 402 Fig 4A and [0040]) may be provided in a number of 3 to 12 [0040]. 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 Umotoy to include 12 protrusions because Fodor teaches this as the upper end of the range of 3 or more for the number of protrusions to center a substrate [0040] and the range includes the 6 taught by Umotoy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/07/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument (reply p 12-13) that Arai is not an edge ring is not persuasive because Arai teaches a ring shaped body that is provided around the edge of the substrate. The fact that Arai uses the ring to also support a peripheral portion of the substrate does not negate that Arai is an edge ring. Applicant may wish to claim additional details of the substrate supporting structure if applicant believes that these details further define the instant invention. Further, Umotoy is relied upon as the primary reference and teaches the edge ring structure. Arai is relied upon for teaching alternative shapes of a ring body. For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,711,815 teaches an edge ring for covering outer purge gas holes (Fig 1-2). US 5,624,499 teaches a substrate support with edge purge gas supply (Fig 1).
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.
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.
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights