DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (4/26/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-21) were pending and examined in a Non-Final on 2/11/2026. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 5/7/2026. New Claims 22-29 were added. These claims are being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Regarding tapered slot, Applicant argues that Sugiyama discloses vertically tapered slot but not radially. This however is incorrect since radial slots with taper are disclosed in Fig 11 as was stated in last office action. Regarding claim 2 since tapered slot is disclosed it would therefore be inverse of a wear rate. Rejection stays. New claims are addressed in the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Kellogg (US 20150044873) in view of Lee et al (US 20110042009) and Sugiyama et al (US 6733620).
Michael Kellogg discloses a confinement ring (305);
a lower horizontal section (305c);
a downwardly extending section (335);
radially extending slots (226); each of the slots preferably having a length of at least 1.0 inch, and a width of about 0.01 to 0.2 inch;
upper horizontal section (305a);
a vertical section (305b) extending downwardly from an outer end of the upper annular section (305a) (see paragraphs 15-17, and Fig 2B).
Michael Kellogg does not disclose "an inner slot radius of each slot at the inner diameter is less than an outer slot radius of each slot at the outer diameter"
Lee et al disclose a baffle plate including first vents (22) parts through which reaction gas passes. Lee teaches that vents (22) are not limited to a slot shape, and may be formed in various shapes considering a plasma environment condition (see paragraphs 56-57, and figure 2). The slots appear to be tapered as in Fig 3. However, Sugiyama et al disclose tapered slot more explicitly (Fig 11).
It is noted that the claim 1 requires slot radius smaller at the near diameter. This effectively a tapered slot with rounded edges. Sugiyama et al discloses taper more explicitly in Fig 11 while rounded edge is disclosed in Fig 4A or 4B.
Therefore, having claimed shape for plasma spatial environment control would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 22-25, the taper as defined by the radius is discussed above.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 13 inner upper radius is greater.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, step is disclosed in 2A and 2B.
Regarding claim 6 slot length is disclosed more than 1.0 inch (Para 17).
Regarding claims 7 and 15 fastening holes are disclosed at 338 in Michael Kellogg.
Regarding claims 8 and 16 lower extension 335 of horizontal section sits on outer ring 400 (Fig 2A).
Regarding claim 9 and 12 the confinement ring is a C shaped structure in Kellogg.
Regarding claim 11 limitations additional to those of claim 1 are Upper and lower electrodes and ground ring. These are however disclosed in Kellogg as chamber (300), upper electrode (303), lower electrode (317) and ground ring (400).
Regarding claim 17 the confinement ring contains silicon (Abstract).
Regarding claims 18 and 19 the dimensions of the confinement ring are made according to the gap between the upper and lower electrode in order to confine the plasma therein (Para 32).
Regarding claim 20 extension section is integral with lower horizontal section in Kellogg.
Regarding claim 21the slots provide for evacuation of gas during processing (Para 5).
Regarding claim 26 confinement ring is attached to upper electrode 202 (Kellog Para 13) and extends to lower electrode 204 (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 27-29 plurality of rings are edge ring 311, outer confinement ring 306 and an outer ring 400 supporting the confinement ring (Fig 2A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al (US 20200051792) discloses a similar confinement ring (Fig 1 and 2A).
Canniff (US 20180040479) discloses another similar confinement ring (Fig 2).
Kellogg et al (US 2012000608) discloses another similar confinement ring (Fig 4A-4C).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights