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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 Feb 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 20 Feb 2026.
Claims 11-15 are pending. Claim 11 is amended. Claims 1-10, 16-25 are canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (US 2008/0006207 A1 hereinafter "Miyagawa") in view of Tomura et al. (US 2016/0379856 A1 hereinafter “Tomura”) and Sun et al. (US 2005/0016684 A1 hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding independent claim 11, Miyagawa teaches a dry etching apparatus (comprising substrate processing apparatus 10, Fig. 1, para. [0027]-[0028]) comprising:
a process chamber (comprising chamber 11, Fig. 1, para. [0028]);
a support (comprising electrostatic chuck 22 and susceptor 12, Fig. 1, para. [0031]-[0032]) provided in the process chamber (comprising 11, Fig. 1)and configured to support a substrate (comprising wafer W, Fig. 1, para. [0031]);
a gas supply (comprising supply/source of process gas, para. [0038]) configured to supply a process gas into the process chamber (comprising 11, Fig. 1);
a plasma source (comprising showerhead 29 and RF power supply 31 and 19, Fig. 1) configured to generate plasma using the process gas in the process chamber (para. [0037],[0040]),
wherein the support (comprising 22 and 12, Fig. 1) comprises: an electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) on which the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) is disposed;
an edge ring (comprising focus ring 24, Fig. 1, para. [0034]) provided along a circumference of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and supporting an edge region of the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1);
an adhesive gel pad (comprising heat-transfer sheet 39, Fig. 1) provided between the electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and the edge ring (comprising 24, Fig. 1) (para. [0045]-[0049]); and
wherein the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and is disposed on a portion of the upper surface of the edge ring (comprising 24, Fig. 1) that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1).
Miyagawa does not explicitly teach the gas supply is configured to supply a process gas comprising a hydrogen gas (H2) and a fluorocarbon gas (CxFy) into the process chamber; the edge ring comprises a lower ring attached to the electrostatic chuck and configured to not be exposed to the plasma; and an upper ring provided only on the lower ring and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring, without being provided on any other surface in the process chamber, and is configured to be exposed to the plasma, and wherein the substrate is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and is disposed on a portion of an upper surface of the upper ring that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate.
However, Miyagawa does teach the use of fluorocarbon gases for etching a substrate (para. [0005]).
Additionally, Tomura further teaches a dry etching apparatus (comprising etching apparatus 1, Fig. 1, para. [0028]) comprising a gas supply (comprising gas supply source 15, Fig. 1, para. [0036]) configured to supply a process gas comprising a hydrogen gas (H2) and a fluorocarbon gas (CxFy) into the process chamber (para. [0049], abstract). Tomura teaches that such a configuration enables providing gases capable of etching a silicon dioxide layer on the substrate (para. [0010], abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the gas supply to supply a process gas comprising a hydrogen gas (H2) and a fluorocarbon gas (CxFy) into the process chamber because Tomura teaches that such a configuration enables providing gases capable of etching a silicon dioxide layer on the substrate (Tomura: para. [0010], abstract).
Miyagawa in view of Tomura as applied above does not explicitly teach the edge ring comprises a lower ring attached to the electrostatic chuck and configured to not be exposed to the plasma; and an upper ring provided only on the lower ring without being provided on any other surface in the process chamber and is configured to be exposed to the plasma.
However, Sun teaches an upper ring (comprising 425, Fig. 4, para. [0026]) provided only on the lower ring (comprising process kit 420, Fig. 4, para. [0026], claim 1) and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring (as understood from Fig. 4), the lower ring is not exposed to the plasma, the upper ring is not being provided on any other surface in the process chamber (since the disclosure focuses in the coating on the annular body with no disclosure about other components being coated, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that no other surface in the process chamber has the lower ring). Sun teaches that such a configuration can endure plasma ion bombardment and temperature variation cycle in the chamber for a long period of time and thereby prolong the lifetime of the edge ring(para. [0027]).
Examiner notes that Miyagawa already teaches wherein the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and is disposed on a portion of the upper surface of the edge ring (comprising 24, Fig. 1) that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the edge ring to comprise a lower ring attached to the electrostatic chuck and configured to not be exposed to the plasma; and an upper ring provided only on the lower ring and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring, without being provided on any other surface in the process chamber (i.e. by providing a coating on the edge ring 24 of Miyagawa as taught by Sun), and is configured to be exposed to the plasma because Sun teaches that such a configuration can endure plasma ion bombardment and temperature variation cycle in the chamber for a long period of time and thereby prolong the lifetime of the edge ring(para. [0027]). Further, since Miyagawa further teaches wherein the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and is disposed on a portion of the upper surface of the edge ring (comprising 24, Fig. 1) that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1), limitation "wherein the substrate is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and is disposed on a portion of an upper surface of the upper ring that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate" would obviously be met when modifying Miyagawa in view of teachings of Sun.
Regarding claim 11 limitation “an upper ring provided only on the lower ring, without being provided on any other surface in the process chamber,” examiner notes that these limitation does not appear to have any criticality in light of instant Application original Specification para. [0049] reciting “the coating layer 240 may also be applied to other components that make up the dry etching apparatus 10 and that may be exposed to the plasma (PS) (including, but not limited to, a cover ring, a top electrode, a bottom electrode, a liner, a baffle, etc.) as well as the edge ring 220.”
Regarding claim 12, Miyagawa in view of Tomura and Sun teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 11 as applied above and Sun further teaches the upper ring (comprising 425, Fig. 4) comprises a first polymer comprising at least a fluorocarbon-based material (Sun: para. [0026]-[0027]). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, Miyagawa in view of Tomura and Sun teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 11 as applied above and Sun further teaches wherein a thickness of the upper ring (comprising 425, Fig. 4) is less than 1.5 mm (para. [0028]), which overlaps with claimed range of 1 mm to about 50% of a total thickness of the edge ring. Furthermore, the courts have held that the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)(See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (US 2008/0006207 A1 hereinafter "Miyagawa") in view of Tomura et al. (US 2016/0379856 A1 hereinafter “Tomura”) and Sun et al. (US 2005/0016684 A1 hereinafter “Sun”) as applied above in claims 11, 12, 14 and further in view of Mitsuhashi et al. (US 2004/0216667 A1 hereinafter “Mitsuhashi”) or alternatively Chen et al. (US 2013/0203258 A1 hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 13, Miyagawa in view of Tomura and Sun teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 11 as applied above but does not explicitly teach the upper ring comprises a ceramic comprising a silicon nitride-based material.
However, Sun teaches that the upper ring (comprising 425, Fig. 4) comprises PTFE which is suitable for protecting the lower ring from fluorocarbon-based plasma (para. [0014],[0026]).
Additionally, Mitsuhashi teaches an upper ring (comprising a barrier coating layer 74 or 76 (Fig. 2, 4A and 4B) for focus ring 43 (Fig. 1), para. [0024],[0072], [0077]-[0079], [0094]-[0096]; claim 1, 3, 4) comprises a ceramic comprising a silicon nitride-based material sealed with a resin such as PTFE (para. [0024], claim 1 ,3 4). Mitsuhashi teaches that such a configuration is suitable for protecting the lower ring/internal member from corrosion during processing in plasma processing chamber using fluorocarbon (i.e. C4F8) containing processing gases/plasma (para.[0067], [0073], [0146]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material including silicon nitride-based material (i.e. silicon nitride sealed with PTFE) as the material in the upper ring because Sun already teaches the upper ring comprises PTFE which is suitable for protecting the lower ring from fluorocarbon-based plasma (Sun: para. [0014], [0026]) and because Mitsuhashi teaches such a material (i.e. silicon nitride sealed with PTFE) is a known suitable alternative material for protecting the lower ring from corrosion during plasma processing using a fluorocarbon gas/plasma (Mitsuhashi: para. [0067], [0073],[00146]).
Alternatively, Sun teaches that the upper ring (comprising 425, Fig. 4) comprises PTFE which is suitable for protecting the lower ring from fluorocarbon-based plasma (para. [0014],[0026]).
Additionally, Chen teaches selecting silicon nitride material as a protective material for a ring in a plasma processing chamber is a known suitable alternative to a fluoropolymer (Chen: para. [0044]-[0045]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select/comprise the upper ring comprising a silicon nitride-base material because Chen teaches that such a material is a known suitable alternative protective material for a fluoropolymer used in a ring in a plasma processing chamber (Chen: para. [0044]-[0045]).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (US 2008/0006207 A1 hereinafter "Miyagawa") in view of Tomura et al. (US 2016/0379856 A1 hereinafter “Tomura”) and Sun et al. (US 2005/0016684 A1 hereinafter “Sun”) as applied above in claims 11, 12, 14 and further in view of Nishio et al. (US 2005/0230049 A1 hereinafter “Nishio”).
Regarding claim 15, Miyagawa in view of Tomura and Sun teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as applied above but does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the lower ring comprises materials determined according to materials comprising the upper ring, and wherein the edge ring is configured such that an overall dielectric constant of the edge ring is configured to maintain a distance between an interface of a sheath of a plasma formed on the substrate and the edge ring in an inner space of the process chamber.
However, Miyagawa teaches that the lower ring (comprising 24, Fig. 1) comprises silicon (para. [0034]).
Additionally, Sun teaches the upper ring (comprising 425, Fig. 2) comprises a polymer including PTFE (para. [0026]).
Examiner notes that the taught materials of Miyagawa and Sun are the same as those disclosed in the instant application Specification para. [0062]-[0063].
Further, Nishio teaches that the selection of material of an edge ring affects the electrical properties including dielectric constant, which affects the voltage drop with respect to the plasma and substrate/wafer, and ultimately has an effect on the plasma sheath distance/thickness above the wafer/substrate and the edge/focus ring (abstract, para [0032]-[0036], para. [0115]-[0117], see also Fig. 18, 19, 20). Nishio teaches that the distance between an interface of a sheath of plasma formed on the substrate and the edge ring in an inner space of the process chamber affects processing of the substrate such as etch rate and teaches techniques for the selection of material (and thus dielectric constant) of the edge ring to optimize plasma processing (abstract, para. [0064], see Fig. 2-8 and para. [0064]-[0096], [0104]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select materials with the desired overall dielectric constant to optimize the distance between an interface of a sheath of a plasma formed on the substrate and the edge ring in an inner space of the process chamber because Nishio teaches that the dielectric constant of the edge ring (i.e. selection of edge ring material) affects the distance between an interface of a sheath of plasma formed on the substrate and the edge ring in an inner space of the process chamber which ultimately affects processing of the substrate such as etch rate (Nishio: abstract, para. [0104]). The examiner additionally notes that because the combination of Miyagawa in view of Tomura and Sun teaches the same materials as disclosed in the instant invention, the apparatus of the same would be considered capable of meeting claim 15 limitations. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 11, Miyagawa and Tomura fail to teach or suggest "an upper ring" and a "lower ring." and thus does not teach amended claim 11 limitation "an upper ring provided only on the lower ring and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring…, wherein the substrate is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and is disposed on a portion of an upper surface of the upper ring that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate.”
Examiner responds neither Miyagawa nor Tomura are cited to teach the upper ring and the lower ring. Miyagawa teaches an edge ring but does not explicitly teach that the edge ring comprises an upper ring and a lower ring. Sun is cited to teach the upper ring and the lower ring and does teach the amended claim 11 limitations as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7-8) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 11, Sun does not and cannot support the backside of the wafer 410. Thus, Sun does not teach or suggest an upper surface of the upper ring that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate. Additionally, the thin layer 425 of Sun is fundamentally different from the upper ring as recited in claim 11. Modifying the support structure of Miyagawa with the non-supporting coating of Sun would fundamentally change the principle of operation of Sun.
Examiner responds Miyagawa already teaches wherein the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and is disposed on a portion of the upper surface of the edge ring (comprising 24, Fig. 1) that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1). Modifying the structure of Miyagawa with the teachings of Sun (i.e. by providing a coating on the edge ring 24 of Miyagawa as taught by Sun), would obviously result in a lower ring attached to the electrostatic chuck and configured to not be exposed to the plasma; and an upper ring provided only on the lower ring and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring, without being provided on any other surface in the process chamber and is configured to be exposed to the plasma, wherein the substrate is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and is dispose don a portion of an upper surface of the upper ring that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an upper ring/coating on the lower ring because Sun teaches that such a configuration can endure plasma ion bombardment and temperature variation cycle in the chamber for a long period of time and thereby prolong the lifetime of the edge ring (para. [0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the principle of operation of Miyagawa would not be fundamentally changed by modifying the apparatus of Miyagawa in view of teachings of Sun.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9-10) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 11, Sant discloses a multi-component ring assembly but does not teach/suggest an upper ring provided only on the lower ring and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring as recited in amended claim 11.
Examiner responds Sant is no longer cited in the current rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 11) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 11, the grounds of rejection appear to rely on impermissible hindsight, using knowledge of the present specification, and hence, are improper.
Examiner responds to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Miyagawa already teaches wherein the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and is disposed on a portion of the upper surface of the edge ring (comprising 24, Fig. 1) that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1). Additionally, Sun teaches an upper ring (comprising 425, Fig. 4, para. [0026]) provided only on the lower ring (comprising process kit 420, Fig. 4, para. [0026], claim 1) and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring (as understood from Fig. 4), the lower ring which is not exposed to the plasma, the upper ring is not being provided on any other surface in the process chamber (since the disclosure focuses in the coating on the annular body with no disclosure about other components being coated, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that no other surface in the process chamber has the lower ring). Sun teaches that such a configuration can endure plasma ion bombardment and temperature variation cycle in the chamber for a long period of time and thereby prolong the lifetime of the edge ring (Sun: para. [0027]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the apparatus of Miyagawa to result in "an upper ring provided only on the lower ring and covering an entirety of an upper surface of the lower ring…, wherein the substrate is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and is disposed on a portion of an upper surface of the upper ring that supports a back-side surface of the edge region of the substrate” because Sun teaches that such a configuration can endure plasma ion bombardment and temperature variation cycling in the chamber for a long period of time and thereby prolong the lifetime of the edge ring(Sun: para. [0027]).
In light of the above, independent claim 11 is rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent 11, the dependent claims 12-15 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights