DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 3, 2026, has been entered.
Claim 4 is amended; claims 1-3, 6, and 11 are canceled.
The applicant contends:
(1) Yamawaku discloses a unitary focus ring (25) formed monolithically of silicon. In order to satisfy claimed features of the second corrosion resistant layer and the air layer, the examiner simply construes the uppermost 1 mm stratum of the surface 25Ta as the former and the volume filling concave portion 25c as the latter. However, Yamawaku’s concave portion (25c) is designed to accommodate an outer ring (25d) and does not sit on a discrete underlying layer. For a feature to be “on” a layer, there must be a structural relationship where the underlying layer support or delimits the boundary of the enhancement layer. The Office, on the other hand, appears to be “slicing a homogenous material into theoretical zones” (pp. 8-9).
(2) The final paragraph of claim 4 recites a mathematical relationship among the parameters of W, D, and A, whereby the cross-sectional area of A is at least 20 percent of the product of W and D. The prior art does not suggest this relationship (p. 9).
In response,
(1) The examiner finds the argument unpersuasive precisely because the claim limitations read upon a monolithic block of homogenous material that has been sliced into theoretical zones. Applicant’s disclosure provides no evidence that the second corrosion resistant layer is materially or structurally distinct from the remainder of the chucking reinforcement area. It appears that the second corrosion resistant layer is simply the uppermost strata of the reinforcement area, e.g., there is no indication that one is formed of a different material or possesses different properties, save for vertical position. (If this characterization is inaccurate, then the examiner encourages Applicant to codify the appropriate distinctions.) Accordingly, the examiner has identified Yamawaku’s chucking reinforcement area and designated the uppermost strata of this area as the “second corrosion resistant layer.” This is fully consistent not only with the claim language but with Applicant’s disclosure more broadly.
Regarding the claimed “air layer,” paragraph [0108] of Applicant’s specification reads: “the chucking enhancement layer 132 may be an air layer,” where reference numeral 132 indicates an empty volume of space in Figure 3. That is, the air layer/chucking enhancement layer is nothing more that the volume of air which naturally fills a cavity, whereby the upper layer of the cavity’s lower surface is simply the second corrosion resistant layer.
Yamawaku’s focus ring also comprises a cavity (25c) into which air will necessarily diffuse. Deferring to Applicant’s nomenclature, the horizontal extent of this cavity may be construed as the “chucking reinforcement area,” with the upper layer of the cavity’s lower surface (25Ta) being taken as the “second corrosion resistant layer.” Objectively, the air filling the cavity (25c) directly interfaces with the upper layer of the cavity’s lower surface, thereby satisfying Applicant’s demand that the prior art show a “structural relationship” between the claimed features.
(2) The examiner has mapped the parameters of A, W, and D upon Yamawaku’s focus ring, as rendered by Figure 5B, yielding a ratio of precisely 22.2 percent. This exceeds the claimed threshold of 20 percent. Of course, Yamawaku does not stipulate that the depiction of Figure 5B is precisely to scale, but it is objectively true that the prior art has contributed to the public domain a focus ring comprising the claimed parameters arranged in a manner satisfying the claimed mathematical ratio. It is the Office’s position that one of ordinary skill would understand Figure 5B of Yamawaku to be, at the very least, suggestive of the claimed design, warranting further experimentation and optimization. In other words, given the disclosure of a structure having a measurable configuration, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to implement this structure under the practice of routine experimentation, even without an explicit statement that said structure was rendered at scale.
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 of this title, 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 4-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku et al., US 2012/0251759.
Claim 4: Yamawaku discloses a focus ring (25), comprising:
A seating part (~25b) and a body part (~25T) (Fig. 5B);
Wherein a seating surface is provided on the seating part to seat the substrate (W) (Fig. 1);
Wherein a step is provided between the seating part and the body part (Fig. 5B);
Wherein the body part comprising a body area, i.e., the step area, and a chucking reinforcement area (25T);
A chucking enhancement area (25c) comprising an air layer;
Wherein the focus ring and the chucking reinforcement area are each in the form of a ring.
To clarify further, the uppermost surface of the step area, at an arbitrary depth of 1.1 mm, may be taken as the “first corrosion resistant layer,” and the uppermost surface (25Ta) of the chucking reinforcement area, at an arbitrary depth of 1 mm, may be taken as the second corrosion resistant layer.
Lastly, regarding the ratio recited by the final paragraph, the examiner has mapped the parameters of A, W, and D upon Yamawaku’s focus ring, as rendered by Figure 5B, yielding a ratio of precisely 22.2 percent. This exceeds the claimed threshold of 20 percent. Of course, Yamawaku does not stipulate that the depiction of Figure 5B is precisely to scale, but it is objectively true that the prior art has contributed to the public domain a focus ring comprising the claimed parameters arranged in a manner satisfying the claimed mathematical ratio. It is the Office’s position that one of ordinary skill would understand Figure 5B of Yamawaku to be, at the very least, suggestive of the claimed design, warranting further experimentation and optimization. In other words, given the disclosure of a structure having a measurable configuration, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to implement this structure under the practice of routine experimentation, even without an explicit statement that said structure was rendered at scale.
Claim 5: As admitted by paragraph [0108], the chucking enhancement layer is commensurate with an “air layer,” i.e., an unbounded volume of air. Accordingly, one may delimit Yamawaku’s air layer arbitrarily so as to yield a volume within the claimed range.
Claims 7-8: Yamawaku forms the focus ring of silicon, whose flexural strength is approximately 300 MPa [0058].
Claim 9: One can arbitrarily map a region exceeding 3.6 mm in thickness upon Yamawaku’s focus ring and designate it as the “first corrosion resistant layer.”
Claim 10: One can arbitrarily define the boundary of the chucking enhancement layer such that it constitutes at least 15 percent of the total volume of Yamawaku’s focus ring.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Doan et al., US 2015/0001180. Doan discloses a plasma etching apparatus comprising a plasma chamber (100), an electrostatic chuck (122), and a focus ring (130) placed on the ESC and configured to support an object (120) to be etched ([0029ff]; Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights