DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (focus ring), drawn to claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 102128595B1) in view of Mun (KR 20080060726A).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee teaches a focus ring (focus ring, 330) [fig 2a-2c & 0024] comprising: a first ring (first ring, 331) made of a first material (SiC) [fig 2a-2c & 0029, 0046]; a second ring (second ring, 332) covered by the first ring (331), the second ring (3332) being made of a second material (Si) different from the first material (SiC) [fig 2a-2c & 0029, 0046].
Lee does not specifically teach a fastening member configured to couple the first ring to the second ring, wherein the fastening member comprises: a through-part configured to pass through the second ring; and a buried part buried in a lower portion of the first ring, wherein the through-part has a first diameter, and the buried part has a second diameter greater than or equal to the first diameter.
Mun teaches a fastening member (fixing pin, 420) configured to couple the first ring (second focus ring, 412) to the second ring (first focus ring, 411), wherein the fastening member (420) comprises: a through-part (portion of 420 within 421 of 411) configured to pass through the second ring (411) [fig 2-3 & page 4]; and a buried part (portion of 420 within 421 of 411) buried in a lower portion of the first ring (412), wherein the through-part has a first diameter, and the buried part has a second diameter greater than or equal to the first diameter (420 is depicted as cylindrical) [fig 2-3 & page 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the focus ring of Lee to comprise a fastening member (rather than an adhesive), as in Mun to allow for the first ring to be separated and replaced without replacing the entire focus ring [Mun – page 4].
Regarding claims 3-4:
Modified Lee teaches the fastening member (420) includes a plurality of fastening members (see fig 3), and the plurality of fastening members (420) are arranged at regular intervals (see fig 3) along the second ring (411) [Mun - fig 3 & page 4]; and wherein the number of plurality of fastening member is 4 to 24 (four are depicted in fig 3) [Mun - fig 3 & page 4].
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Lee teaches the fastening member (420) comprises a first fastening member (one of 420) and a second fastening member (another of 420), wherein a distance between an inner circumferential surface of the first ring (412) and a center of the first fastening member (one of 420) is a first distance (distance in the x direction), and a distance between the inner circumferential surface of the first ring (412) and a center of the second fastening member (another of 420) is a second distance (distance in an oblique direction), wherein the first distance (distance in the x direction) and the second distance (distance in an oblique direction) are different from each other [Mun - fig 3 & page 4].
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Lee teaches the fastening member (420) comprises a first fastening member (one of 420), a second fastening member (second 420), and a third fastening member (third 420), which are sequentially arranged in a clockwise direction (see fig 3), wherein an interval between the first fastening member (one of 420) and the second fastening member (second 420) is a first distance (set 90̊ apart), and an interval between the second fastening member (second 420) and the third fastening member (third 420) is a second distance (set 180̊ apart), wherein the first distance (set 90̊ apart) and the second distance (set 180̊ apart) are different from each other [Mun - fig 3 & page 4].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Lee teaches a first center line (central axis of 412) passing through a center of the first ring (412) is defined, and the fastening member (420) is disposed outside the first center line (central axis of 412) [Mun - fig 3 & page 4].
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Lee teaches the second ring (411) comprises an inner region (inner region of 411), and an outer region (outer region of 411), and the fastening member (420) is disposed within the outer region (outer region of 411) [Mun - fig 3 & page 4].
The claim limitations “seated on an electrostatic chuck” and “seated on a cover ring” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Specifically, the regions of the second ring are capable of being seated on any structure desired. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.
Regarding claim 9:
Lee teaches the first ring (first ring, 331) comprises a cover part configured to cover the second ring (second ring, 332), wherein the cover part has a second thickness (T1), the buried part has a fourth thickness (T2), and a ratio of the fourth thickness to the second thickness (T2/T1) is about 0.1 to about 0.7 (0.25-0.667) [fig 2c & 0041].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10:
Lee teaches the first material (SiC) and the second material (Si) are selected from different materials from the group consisting of silicon carbide (SiC), silicon (Si), and boron carbide [fig 2a-2c & 0046].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 102128595B1) in view of Mun (KR 20080060726A) as applied to claims 1 and 3-10 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2011/0031111).
The limitations of claims 1 and 3-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Lee does not specifically teach the second diameter is greater than the first diameter, and a ratio of the second diameter to the first diameter is about 1.1 to about 2.
Kobayashi teaches a second diameter is greater than a first diameter (see fig 5) [fig 5 & 0098].
The written description of Kobayashi does not specifically disclose “a ratio of the second diameter to the first diameter is about 1.1 to about 2”. However, although proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977) [MPEP 2125 (II)]. Figure 5 of Kobayashi appears to fall within the claimed range or, at the very least, is close to falling within the claimed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946) [MPEP 2144.05]. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, "[W]here 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). After KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a variable [MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)]. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum ratio through routine experimentation in order to account for differences in the thermal expansion between the first material and the second material [Kobayashi – 0098]. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the claimed ratio, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05]. Smith V. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") [MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fastening member of modified Lee such that the second diameter is greater than the first diameter, as in Kobayashi, to absorb differences in thermal expansion between the first material and the second material in order to accurately position the first ring [Kobayashi – 0098].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 102128595B1) in view of Mun (KR 20080060726A) as applied to claims 1 and 3-10 above, and further in view of Yudovsky et al (US 6,521,292).
The limitations of claims 1 and 3-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose the fastening member comprises: at least one ceramic material selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxide, zirconium silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, magnesium oxide, silicon carbide, and aluminum nitride; or an organic polymer.
Yudovsky teaches a fastening member (pin, 121) comprises: at least one ceramic material selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxide, zirconium silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, magnesium oxide, silicon carbide, and aluminum nitride; or an organic polymer (preferably made of ceramic materials such as alumina or aluminum nitride) [fig 8 & col 9, lines 35-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fastening member of modified Lee to comprise the ceramic material of Yudovsky because such materials are well suited for use at high temperatures [Yudovsky - col 9, lines 35-54]. Furthermore, it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 102128595B1) in view of Mun (KR 20080060726A) as applied to claims 1 and 3-10 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US 2005/0133165).
The limitations of claims 1 and 3-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 12-13:
Modified Lee does not specifically teach the fastening member has a recessed bottom surface; and wherein the recessed bottom surface comprises a lowest surface at an edge thereof and a highest surface at a center thereof, and the lowest surface is disposed at the same level as or higher than the bottom surface of the second ring.
Liu teaches a fastening member (screw, 37) has a recessed bottom surface (recessed surface in head of screw) [fig 7 & 0028]; and wherein the recessed bottom surface (recessed surface in head of screw) comprises a lowest surface at an edge thereof and a highest surface at a center thereof (screws have a recess at a center thereof to engage with a screwing means), and the lowest surface is disposed at the same level as or higher than the bottom surface of the second ring (33) (see fig 7) [fig 7 & 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fastening member of modified Lee with the fastening member of Liu because such is a functional equivalent [Mun – page 4]. As such, this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claims 14-15:
Modified Lee does not specifically teach a lower portion of the through-part has a third diameter greater than the first diameter; and wherein the lower portion of the through-part has a tapered shape of which a diameter gradually increases.
Liu teaches a lower portion of the through-part (hole in 33 through which 37 passes) has a third diameter greater than the first diameter (see fig 7) [fig 7 & 0028]; and wherein the lower portion of the through-part (hole in 33 through which 37 passes) has a tapered shape of which a diameter gradually increases (see fig 7) [fig 7 & 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the through-part of modified Lee to house the fastening member of Liu because such a fastening member is a functional equivalent [Mun – page 4]. As such, this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nezu et al (US 7,678,225), Kim (KR 20170025472A), and Lee et al (KR 102175990B1) teach a first ring made of a first material and a second ring made of a second material different from the first material [fig 5, 2, and 4a, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896