DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Status
The response filed 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-14, 22-25, and 27-30 are pending. In the amendment filed 03/16/2026, claims 9 and 23 were amended, claim 30 was newly added, and no claims were canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 11/05/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202011224676.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant is reminded that providing an interim copy (see interim copy filed 05/05/2023) of a foreign application under 37 CFR 1.55(j) satisfies the requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f), but a certified copy of the foreign application must still be filed during the pendency of the application.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, 11, and 14, references to “semiconductor reaction chamber” are interpreted as referring to a chamber in which the article intended to be worked upon is a semiconductor. Applicant is reminded that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Any apparatus in which a semiconductor substrate may be processed will be interpreted as meeting this claimed limitation.
In claim 9, the claim is interpreted inclusive of referring to the size of the intended article worked upon. The claim is examined with the understanding that regardless of what wafer size is shown, a smaller wafer which meets the requirement of having an outer diameter smaller than the diameter of an inner annular surface of the upper focus ring be larger than the diameter of the wafer may be used in the apparatus. Applicant is reminded that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Applicant may wish to define the diameter of the upper focus ring relative to the chuck or another fixed structure of the apparatus to avoid this interpretation.
In claim 10, “etch-resistant material” is interpreted consistent with [0037] of the instant specification as inclusive of silicon carbide or quartz. It is noted that “etch-resistant” is a function of the specific etchant chemical being used.
In claim 12, “configured to detect position information of the focus ring pins and feedback on the position information” is interpreted inclusive of indirectly detecting the position through movement of structures attached to the focus ring pins. The sensor is disclosed as 491 [0047] or 492 [0058] and is not shown as directly measuring the pin specifically and instead is attached to a structure attached to the pins (see Fig 7, 10, 13).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first control unit” in claim 12 (note the generic placeholder “unit” and functional limitation “configured to control an operation of the first driving source according to the position information) interpreted as a controller and equivalents thereof [0047].
“second control unit” in claim 18 (note the generic placeholder “unit” and functional limitation “configured to control an operation of the first driving source according to the position information) interpreted as a controller and equivalents thereof [0058].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note that “driving device” in claim 11 has not been interpreted as invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim recites sufficient structure.
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 (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.
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, 6-10, 14, 27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (prev. presented US 2021/0098238) in view of Yamanaka (prev. presented US 2004/0241995).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a carrier device (substrate support 16 shown in Fig 2-3 [0029]) configured to carry a wafer in a semiconductor [0029] reaction chamber [0029] (see also Fig 1, note the substrate may be a semiconductor wafer) comprising: a chuck (20 Fig 2-3 [0030]) arranged in the semiconductor reaction chamber to support the wafer [0030-0033] (Fig 1-3); a focus ring assembly (22 Fig 2-3) [0047] including: a lower focus ring (221 Fig 2-3 [0047]) arranged around the chuck (Fig 2-3 [0049]) and including a groove on an upper surface (groove above 221m Fig 4) of the lower focus ring (Fig 4), a part of an upper surface (upper surface of 221i Fig 4) of the lower focus ring located on an inner side of the groove (upper surface of 221i Fig 4) being a support area (Fig 2-3 see inner end of ring 221), the support area being flush with an upper surface of the chuck and configured to support the wafer with the chuck (Fig 2-3 demonstrates the inner portion of the ring 221 is flush see also [0054]); and an upper focus ring (222 Fig 2-3) [0047] ascendingly and descendingly arranged in the groove [0053-0057], in response to the upper focus ring being in the groove, an upper surface of the upper focus ring being higher than the support area (Fig 2-3 upper surface of 222 is higher than upper surface of 20), a first position-limiting member (222r Fig 4 [0055]) being arranged on a lower surface of the upper focus ring [0055] and corresponding to the groove (Fig 4); and a plurality of focus ring pins (72 Fig 3 [0057]) distributed along a circumference of the upper focus ring at intervals ([0055], taught as three spaced apart to lift the upper ring [0057]), each focus ring pin of the plurality of focus ring pins being ascendingly and descendingly arranged in the carrier device (Fig 2) and penetrating a part of the lower focus ring located at a bottom of the groove (penetrating via hole 221h Fig 3-5 [0051]) to lift the upper focus ring when ascending ([0052], [0055]), a second position-limiting member being arranged at an upper end of the focus ring pin (722t Fig 3 [0060]) and cooperating with the first position-limiting member when the focus ring pin lifts the upper focus ring to limit a horizontal position of the upper focus ring on the focus ring pin [0060]; a plurality of through-holes (221h Fig 3-4 [0051]) are arranged at a part of the focus ring located at the bottom of the groove (Fig 3-4); a number of the through-holes is equal to a number of the plurality of focus ring pins [0051]; and the plurality of focus ring pins pass through the through-holes in a one-to-one correspondence to extend into the groove [0051-0052] (Fig 2-6). Hayashi teaches the lower focus ring is one body and therefore fails to teach the lower focus ring includes an inner focus ring and an outer focus ring, the outer focus ring being arranged around the inner focus ring; the groove is formed on at least one of an upper surface of the inner focus ring or an upper surface of the outer focus ring, and the support area is formed on the upper surface of the inner focus ring; a diameter of an outer annular surface of the inner focus ring is equal to a diameter of an inner annular surface of the outer focus ring; the outer annular surface of the inner focus ring is located on an inner side of a circumference where the plurality of focus ring pins are located; and the plurality of through holes are arranged as part of the outer focus ring. In the same field of endeavor of plasma apparatuses with substrate carrier having edge rings ([0001-0004], Fig 1), Yamanaka teaches a focus ring includes an inner focus ring (107a Fig 1-2) and an outer focus ring (107b Fig 1-2), the outer focus ring being arranged around the inner focus ring (Fig 2 [0072]); a diameter of an outer annular surface of the inner focus ring is equal to a diameter of an inner annular surface of the outer focus ring [0072] (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lower focus ring of Hayashi to include the ring is formed of a plurality of concentric rings as taught by Yamanaka because Yamanaka teaches this arrangement improves uniformity of the processing on the substrate (wafer) surface [0036], [0039], [0047], [0118]. Regarding the position of the split between inner and outer focus rings, Yamanaka teaches this may be varied [0074]. Additionally, Hayashi distinguishes the three regions of the ring as 221i, 221m, 221o (Fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the ring of Hayashi in view of Yamanaka to include the inner region (221i) is formed of the different material as taught by Yamanaka because Yamanaka has taught the inclusion of different materials improves uniformity of the processing on the substrate (wafer) surface [0036], [0039], [0047], [0118] and has taught the specific size of each region may be chosen [0074] whereas Hayashi has distinguished the inner region 221i from outer regions 221m and 221o. In this arrangement, the groove is formed on an upper surface of the outer focus ring (outer focus ring is combination of 221m and 221o), and the support area is formed on the upper surface of the inner focus ring (support area is on upper surface of 221a as cited above and show in Fig 3); the outer annular surface of the inner focus ring is located on an inner side of a circumference where the plurality of focus ring pins are located (the pins are located in 221m Fig 4 and therefore outward of 221i); and the plurality of through holes (221h Fig 4) are arranged as part of the outer focus ring (Fig 4 the through holes are in 221m which is part of the outer focus ring). Regarding the substrate, it is additionally noted that Yamanaka teaches plasma processing a semiconductor wafer [0119].
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches the first position-limiting member is a position-limiting groove (222r Fig 4 [0055]); and an outer surface of the second position-limiting member (722t Fig 8) cooperates with an inner surface of the position-limiting groove ([0055] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi fails to teach orthogonal projections of the outer surface of the second position-limiting member and the inner surface of the position- limiting groove are arc-shaped because Hayashi demonstrates a linearly tapered shape in the orthogonal projection of the outer surfaces. The distinction represents a mere change of shape of the outer surface of the second position-limiting member and the inner surface of the position-limiting groove. 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 outer surface of the second position-limiting member and the inner surface of the position-limiting groove. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi teaches the position-limiting groove (222r Fig 3-4) may be provided as a single recess or as a plurality of recesses [0055]. In the embodiment having a single recess, the recess is an annular groove to extend along the bottom surface of the upper ring (222 Fig 4) and is arranged coaxially with the upper focus ring because this allow the radially position of the groove to be unchanged so that it interfaces with the lift pins (72 Fig 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi teaches a diameter of an inner annular surface of the upper focus ring (222 Fig 3-5) is greater than a diameter of the wafer (Fig 5, see wafer W). Also note that the apparatus may be used with a wafer smaller than the wafer shown in Fig 5. Regarding the specific claimed gap between the inner annular surface of the upper focus ring and the wafer, it is noted that the apparatus may be used with a wafer sized such that the gap is greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm. This limitation is being interpreted as being directed to the intended use of the apparatus. Note that the article worked upon is not considered to define the apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hayashi teaches that either ring may be made of a material selected for the plasma and teaches an example of silicon carbide [0048]. Additionally, Yamanaka teaches the ring may include silicon carbide or quartz [0039].
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Hayashi in view of Yamanaka remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 above. Hayashi teaches a reaction chamber (10 Fig 1) comprising the carrier device (substrate support 16 Fig 1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Yamanaka as applied in the combination to teach the inner focus ring, teaches the ring is formed by a combination of the rings (including 107a) “fit together” [0089]. There is no indication of a mechanical attachment or bonding and therefore the inner ring 107a as taught by Yamanaka in the combination is configured to be individually replaceable with the outer focus ring remaining unchanged.
Regarding claim 29, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. As indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the precise split between the inner and outer focus ring is adjustable because Yamanaka has taught the radius of each portion is adjustable [0074], [0008-0081]. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Hayashi in view of Yamanaka to include the boundary between the inner and outer rings is within the groove such that each ring forms a portion of the groove as claimed. This represents a mere optimization of the side of each ring portion to achieve the desired fluorine radical scavenging ratio [0080-0081].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (prev. presented US 2020/0303233).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi in view of Yamanaka remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hayashi and Hayashi in view of Yamanaka fail to teach an outer annular side surface of the groove includes a first stepped surface; the outer annular surface of the upper focus ring includes a second stepped surface; and the second stepped surface cooperates with the first stepped surface to limit a position of the upper focus ring in the groove. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus including an edge ring (abstract), Lee teaches an outer annular side surface of a groove includes a first stepped surface (inner surface of ring 62 Fig 4, note that there is a groove formed between ring 62 and 172 as shown in Fig 4); the outer annular surface of the upper focus ring (171 Fig 4) includes a second stepped surface (see outer surface of ring 171 Fig 4); and the second stepped surface cooperates with the first stepped surface to limit a position of the upper focus ring in the groove (see Fig 4, the position of the rings interlocks to limit the movement of the upper focus ring 171). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the movable upper ring of Hayashi and the groove of the lower ring to include the stepped surfaces as taught by Lee because this represents a mere change of shape of the outer surface of the upper ring and the inner facing surface of the groove and because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (upper ring of Lee) for another (upper ring of Hayashi) to achieve predictable results (edge ring focusing of a plasma). 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 outer surface of the upper ring and the inner facing surface of the groove. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim(s) 5 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka and Lee as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rathnasinghe (prev. presented US 2022/0189744).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4. Lee as applied in the combination teaches the first stepped surface (stepped surface of outer edge of ring 171 Fig 4 in the combination) includes a first mating surface (outer upper vertical surface of 171 Fig 4), a second mating surface (outer horizontal surface of 171 Fig 4), and a third mating surface (outer lower vertical surface of 171 Fig 4) connected in sequence from top to bottom (Fig 4); the first mating surface and the third mating surface are perpendicular to the upper surface of the lower focus ring (Fig 4); a diameter of the third mating surface is smaller than a diameter of the first mating surface (Fig 4 and [0021]); the second stepped surface includes a fourth mating surface (inner upper vertical surface of ring 62 Fig 4), a fifth mating surface (inner horizontal surface of ring 62 Fig 4), and a sixth mating surface (inner lower vertical surface of ring 62 that is also touching ring 171 Fig 4) connected in sequence (Fig 4), and the fourth mating surface, the fifth mating surface, and the sixth mating surface cooperate with the first mating surface, the second mating surface, and the third mating surface, respectively (Fig 4). Lee as applied in the combination fails to teach a diameter of the second mating surface decreases from top to bottom and that the second mating surface is a first sloped surface having an angle with a vertical direction, the first mating surface is a second sloped surface coordinating with the first sloped surface, and that the ring is able to slide along the sloped surface of the groove under gravity to calibrate the position. Initially it is noted that this is directed to a change in shape of the horizontal surface of the stepped edge to be inclined. Additionally, Lee teaches it is known to alter other horizontal surfaces of the ring (see upper surface of ring 171 Fig 5-6) to be inclined (Fig 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the horizontal surface of the stepped portion of Lee to be inclined because Lee has taught this shape change for other horizontal surfaces of the edge ring. Further, Rathnasinghe demonstrates that an interface between two rings (1048 and 1044 Fig 10A) may be stepped with a horizontal interface (Fig 10A) or may be angled (interface between 808 and 872 Fig 8B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the horizontal surface of the stepped portion of Lee to be inclined because Rathnasinghe demonstrates this is a functional alternative shape for the interface. Regarding the ring being able to slide along the sloped surface under gravity to automatically calibrate a position of the upper focus ring to reach a coaxial position with the lower focus ring, this is a direct result of the altered shape of the ring in the combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Yamanaka as applied in the combination as applied to claim 1 to teach the inner focus ring, teaches the ring is formed by a combination of the rings (including 107a) “fit together” [0089]. There is no indication of a mechanical attachment or bonding and therefore the inner ring 107a as taught by Yamanaka in the combination is configured to be individually replaceable with the outer focus ring remaining unchanged.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sarode Vishwanath (prev. presented US 2019/0362949).
Regarding claim 7, this rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively to the rejection of claim 7 over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka presented above in the event applicant can demonstrate that the difference in shape represents more than a mere change of shape. Hayashi in view of Yamanaka remains as applied to claim 6 above. Hayashi demonstrates orthogonal projections of the outer surface of the second position-limiting member and the inner surface of the position-limiting groove are angled (triangular shaped). In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus with an edge ring assembly (abstract), Sarode Vishwanath teaches the alignment interface between the lifting structure (250) and the upper focus ring (230) may be triangular in the orthogonal projection (Fig 2C,2D, see 252 and 236) or may be arc shaped (Fig 2G, 2H see 252 and 236) [0052]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the outer surface of the second position-limiting member and the inner surface of the position-limiting groove of Hayashi to include that they are arc shaped in the orthogonal projection because Sarode Vishwanath teaches this is an obvious alternative shape for the same function of aligning the ring with the lifting structure [0052].
Regarding claim 8, this rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively to the rejection of claim 8 over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka presented above in the event applicant can demonstrate that Hayashi does not teach a singular recess. Sarode Vishwanath teaches the alignment coupling is ring shaped [0051]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the recess of Hayashi is ring shaped because Sarode demonstrates this shape retains the function of aligning the lifting structure with the ring [0051]. When the alignment structure is a ring shape on the bottom surface of the ring, it is coaxial with the upper focus ring.
Claim(s) 11, 25, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka, Lubomirsky (prev. presented US 2002/0121312), and Son (prev. presented US 2008/0110397).
Regarding independent claim 11 and 30, Hayashi in view of Yamanaka remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 and 14 above. Hayashi teaches a driving unit (74 Fig 2) configured to drive the plurality of focus ring pins to ascend and descend synchronously [0064] but fails to teach the structures of the driving device as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of a semiconductor processing apparatus [0001], Lubomirsky teaches a driving device configured to drive the plurality of focus ring pins to ascend and descend synchronously (Fig 1 & 3) and including: a first adaptor (126 Fig 1&3); a first driving source (114 Fig 1&3), an end of the first driving source being fixed under the chuck (Fig 1 and 3, note it is fixed via the first fixing bracket as shown in the annotated Fig 1 & 3 below), and a driving end of the first driving source being connected to the focus ring pins through the first adaptor (Fig 1 & 3, see annotated Fig 1 &3 below, note that “connected” is inclusive of connected via intervening structures similar to the use of the term in the instant application); a first fixing bracket fixed under the chuck (see annotated Fig 1 below) and including a first mounting surface (surface of fixing bracket on which the slide rail assembly is attached, see annotated Fig 1 & 3 below), the first mounting surface being parallel to a moving direction of the focus ring pins (Fig 1 & 3, see also annotated Fig 1 & 3 below); a first sliding rail assembly (Fig 1 & 3, see also annotated Fig 1 & 3 below); and the first sliding rail assembly being arranged on the first mounting surface (Fig 1 & 3, see also annotated Fig 1 & 3 below) and slidably connected to the first adaptor to limit a movement direction of the focus ring pins (Fig 1 & 3, see also annotated Fig 1 & 3 below). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hayashi to include the driving device of Lubomirsky because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (driving device of Lubomirsky) for another (driving unit of Hayashi) to achieve predictable results (raising and lowering of the ring lift pins). Lubomirsky as applied in the combination and the combination fails to teach a second mounting surface and the second mounting surface and the first mounting surface being perpendicular to the second mounting surface, a second sliding rail assembly, the second sliding rail assembly being arranged on the second mounting surface and slidably connected to the first adaptor to limit a movement direction of the focus ring pins. In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device processing apparatuses [0003], [0024], Son teaches a second mounting surface (different of 187 Fig 11-12) and the second mounting surface and the first mounting surface being perpendicular to the second mounting surface (Fig 11-12, note that some of the 187 surfaces are both parallel to the movement direction of the pins but perpendicular to each other), a second sliding rail assembly (see Fig 14 demonstrating the slide rail assembly 187B, 186A), the second sliding rail assembly being arranged on the second mounting surface (as shown in Fig 14, in one embodiment each of the 187 includes the slide rail assembly mounted thereon) and slidably connected to limit a movement direction of the focus ring pins [0061-0062]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Hayashi in view of Yamanaka and Lubomirsky to include the perpendicularly situated second slide assembly and second surface because this represents a duplication of parts of the slide rail assembly and fixing bracket of Lubomirsky and because Son demonstrates this arrangement allows for several pins to be lifted with stable vertical movement [0061-0062]. Regarding the two surfaces being on the same fixing bracket, Son teaches it is known that the separately shown pin lifting plates may be coupled to each other [0056]. Further making the two guiding structures 187 integral is an obvious modification. "[T]he use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
PNG
media_image2.png
417
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
547
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. Hayashi further teaches the carrier device includes a transfer manipulator (TR Fig 8) configured to transfer the upper focus ring and the wafer through an opening on a sidewall of the semiconductor reaction chamber [0079], [0028] (note because the wafer sits on ring 221 as shown in Fig 5, the transfer robot of Hayashi is configured to transfer it also because when a wafer is present sitting on the ring it will be transferred with the ring).
Claim(s) 12, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka, Lubomirsky, and Son as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Shikayama (US 2011/0236162).
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. The combination as applied to claim 11 fails to teach the driving device further includes: a first sensor configured to detect position information of the focus ring pins and feedback on the position information to a first control unit; and the first control unit configured to control an operation of the first driving source according to the position information. In the same field of endeavor of supporting a substrate during processing (abstract), Shikayama teaches the lift pin driving structure includes a first sensor (110A Fig 1 [0022]) configured to detect position information of the focus ring pins [0022] and feedback on the position information to a first control unit (200A and 300 Fig 1 [0023], [0028]); and the first control unit configured to control an operation of the first driving source according to the position information [0028]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hayashi and the combination to include the sensor and control unit as claimed and as taught by Shikayama because Shikayama teaches this arrangement allows for accurate and constant control of the positions of the lift pins [0032]. Note that Shikayama teaches the lift rings may be used for a ring [0047].
Regarding claim 22, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. The combination as applied to claim 11 fails to teach a plurality of wafer pins distributed along a circumferential direction of the chuck at intervals and configured to drive the wafer to ascend and descend. In the same field of endeavor of supporting a substrate during processing (abstract), Shikayama teaches a plurality of wafer pins (40A, 40B, 40C Fig 9 [0044] distributed along a circumferential direction of the chuck at intervals (Fig 9 [0044]) and configured to drive the wafer to ascend and descend [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination to include a plurality of wafer pins distributed along a circumferential direction of the chuck at intervals and configured to drive the wafer to ascend and descend because Shikayama teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement for lifting a wafer and edge ring [0044-0047] and because separately being able to lift the wafer allows for loading and unloading of just the wafer or other process control steps involving raising the wafer (e.g. temperature control or backside cleaning of the wafer).
Regarding claim 24, the combination remains as applied to claim 22 above and as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 12 above. Shikayama teaches the lift pin driving structure includes a second sensor (110B or C Fig 1 [0022], [0041] “position detector”) configured to detect position information of the wafer pins [0022], [0041] and feedback on the position information to a second control unit (200B and 300 Fig 1 [0023], [0028]); and the second control unit configured to control an operation of the second driving source according to the position information [0028], [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hayashi and the combination to include the sensor and control unit as claimed and as taught by Shikayama because Shikayama teaches this arrangement allows for accurate and constant control of the positions of the lift pins [0032].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka, Lubomirsky, and Son as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Takahashi (prev. presented US 2020/0098550).
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. The combination as applied to claim 11 fails to teach a housing forming a sealed space with a lower surface of the chuck, the driving device being arranged in the sealed space, a fixed end of the first driving source being fixedly connected to the housing or the first fixing bracket, the first fixing bracket being fixedly connected to the housing. In the same field of endeavor of a semiconductor processing apparatus (abstract), [0003], Takahashi teaches a housing forming a sealed space with a lower surface of the chuck (100 Fig 1 [0022]), the driving device being arranged in the sealed space (Fig 1-2, driving device 101, 103, 105 is arranged in the sealed space of the housing), a fixed end of the first driving source being fixedly connected to the housing (Fig 2, the driving motor 101 is fixed to the housing). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hayashi and the combination to include the sealed housing and driving source fixed to the housing because Takahashi demonstrates this arrangement of the parts allows for the lifting of an edge ring within a substrate support (Fig 2). Regarding the alternative of bracket being fixedly connected to the housing, the combination as applied had included the bracket being fixed, the obviousness of the sealed housing in view of Takahashi with driving structures fixed to the housing as needed to support the driving structure. Therefore this arrangement is also obvious in view of the combination as applied.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Yamanaka, Lubomirsky, and Son as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0247671 of Sugawara et al., hereinafter Sugawara.
Regarding claim 22, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. The combination as applied to claim 11 fails to teach a plurality of wafer pins distributed along a circumferential direction of the chuck at intervals and configured to drive the wafer to ascend and descend. In the same field of endeavor of supporting a substrate during processing (abstract), Sugawara teaches a plurality of wafer pins (pins 27 which fit through holes 27A Fig 2-3 [0060], [0078] distributed along a circumferential direction of the chuck at intervals (Fig 2-3 [0060]) and configured to drive the wafer to ascend and descend [0078]. Sugawara teaches this in addition to a plurality of pins (28 with holes 28a Fig 2-3 [0060], [0076]) to raise and lower an edge ring [0076]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination to include a plurality of wafer pins distributed along a circumferential direction of the chuck at intervals and configured to drive the wafer to ascend and descend because Sugawara teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement for lifting a wafer and edge ring [0060] and [0076-0078] and because separately being able to lift the wafer allows for loading and unloading of just the wafer or other process control steps involving raising the wafer (e.g. temperature control or backside cleaning of the wafer).
Regarding claim 23, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 and Hayashi in view of Yamanaka, Lubomirsky, Son and Sugawara remains as applied to claim 22 above. The combination as applied to claim 11 taught a driving device to synchronously drive the focus ring pins including the adaptor, first driving source, and first fixing bracket as cited above in the rejection of claim 11. Sugawara as applied to claim 22 has modified the combination to include a second set of lift pins for lifting the substrate wafer as cited above in the rejection of claim 11. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination to include a duplication of the parts of the lifting structure for the focus ring lifting pins of the combination for lifting the substrate wafer lifting pins because Sugawara teaches the pins may be lifted by the same type of structure regardless of whether for lifting the ring or the substrate (Fig 2) and because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (adaptor, driving source, fixing bracket) for another (lifting structure demonstrated by Sugawara) for the same purpose (raising and lowering of lift pins). Regarding a guide rail on the fixing bracket and a slider on the adapter, the combination as applied to claim 11 (see annotated drawings above) taught this arrangement and therefore the duplication of parts would include this arrangement also. Regarding the first driving source and the second driving source are different drive shafts of a dual-shaft driving source, this represents merely making integral the housing of drivers 27b and 28b (Fig 2) of Sugawara because Sugawara has taught two driven shafts (shown not numbered as being driven by 27b and 28b). Note that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). The two housings are already linked by being mounted to the bottom of the chamber (see Fig 2 of Sugawara). Regarding the first adaptor and second adaptor connected to different driving shafts of the dual-shaft driving source, in the combination as applied Sugawara demonstrates the connection structure to each set of pins is connected to a different shaft of the driving source and therefore the combination as applied renders obvious the two adaptors being connected to different driving shafts. Note that the instant specification does not provide additional details of the dual-shaft driving source to suggest it is more than two drivers in the same housing. Regarding the first fixing bracket and the second fixing bracket (fixing bracket of lift pin structure) being integrated, making the two fixing brackets integral is an obvious modification. "[T]he use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument (reply p16) that the combination does not render the position of the groove obvious because Yamanaka teaches a variety of configurations is not persuasive because Yamanaka teaches the ring arrangement and teaches the positioning is adjustable which includes values for which the boundary would be at the groove. Applicant has not demonstrated any unexpected results due to the positioning of the boundary.
Regarding amended claim 9 (reply p17), as indicated above, the apparatus may be used with a wafer sized to meet the claimed distances. Therefore this amendment does not bring the claim into condition for allowance.
Regarding the argument that Lubomirsky is for lifting a wafer (reply p18-19), there is no indication that the structures for raising the pins are required to be different for a wafer or a focus ring, nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art believe that a different structure to move or drive the pins must be used because of the structure being lifted being a wafer or focus ring.
Regarding Son (reply p20), Son demonstrates a plurality of sliding rails and as indicated in the rejection, the use of a second sliding rail is also a duplication of parts.
Regarding the amendment to claim 23 (reply p21), as indicated above, the change to make a structure integral is an obvious modification. The simplicity of the structure by having less parts is an obvious end result and not an unexpected result.
The new claim is addressed above.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0122870 teaches lifting pins for the wafer and the edge ring (Fig 2B).
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 on 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