DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on December 23, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 10, and 11 are amended. The amendments to the drawings and specification are acceptable and have been entered to the record.
The applicant contends:
(1) The prior art, as embodied by Yamawaku, discloses a unitary silicon focus ring (25) lacking the claimed “multi-layered corrosion-resistant construction” (p. 11).
(2) Claim 2 clarifies that the “chucking reinforcement area,” which is a specific region at the lower portion of the body part, contacts the electrostatic chuck. In contrast, Yamawaku simply discloses a unitary focus ring lacking a designated lower-layer region or dielectric interface (p. 11).
(3) The examiner treats claimed terms like “layer” and “area” as abstractions, but these are physically defined regions. Further, the examiner’s assertion that one may “arbitrarily map” the claimed features upon Yamawaku’s focus ring lacks factual support, as an anticipation rejection requires an express or necessarily present disclosure, not an arbitrary designation (p. 12).
In response,
(1) The examiner observes that claim 1 characterizes the first and second corrosion resistant layers as members of the body and chucking reinforcement areas, respectively. Critically, there is no indication that a given “corrosion resistant layer” is materially or structurally distinct from the remainder of the area in which it is embedded. As such, the claimed corrosion resistant layers may simply be interpreted as the uppermost strata of their respective areas. For example, the uppermost 1 millimeter stratum of the chucking reinforcement area may be treated as the “second corrosion resistant layer,” and the uppermost 1.1 millimeter stratum of the body area may be treated as the “first corrosion resistant layer.”
(2) Figure 1 of Yamawaku depicts the underside of the focus ring (25) resting upon the electrostatic chuck. This underside portion can be given any arbitrary designation, including the designation of “chucking reinforcement area.”
Again, the examiner emphasizes that simply endowing the bottom portion of the focus ring with a dedicated title does not establish that said portion is materially distinct from the remainder of the focus ring. That is, Applicant’s claim reads upon a focus ring of unitary material construction, whereby the various regions of the focus ring are given arbitrary titles. If, in fact, the “chucking reinforcement area” is materially or structurally distinct from the remainder of the focus ring, the examiner encourages Applicant to formally codify this distinction.
(3) To clarify the Office’s use of terms like “abstraction” and “arbitrary,” the examiner refers, as an example, to the claim 1 limitation reciting a “body part compris[ing] a body area and a chucking reinforcement area.” Beyond the observation that the chucking reinforcement area composes some indefinite percentage of the body part along with the body area, the feature of the chucking reinforcement area is not delimited. The chucking reinforcement area may theoretically compose between .01 percent to 99.9 percent of the body part. Further, the claim does not structurally define the chucking reinforcement area – there is no enumeration of any concrete features characteristic of the area. As such, when mapping this language upon the focus ring of Yamawaku, the portion corresponding to the “chucking reinforcement area” may be arbitrarily selected because the selected portion need not satisfy any structural definition. (Again, it need not satisfy any structural definition because the claim does not proffer a structural definition.) Further, the chucking reinforcement area is abstract in the sense that its claimed boundary exists as a theoretical range rather than as a concretely delimited structural feature. Of course, once the examiner designates a portion of Yamawaku’s focus ring as constituting the “chucking reinforcement area,” the selected region is necessarily concretized as an “express disclosure.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 4, as well as their dependents, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to stipulate that the first and second corrosion resistant layers are “directly joined to each other in the body part.” The specification does not support this language, and the new drawings submitted on 12/23/25 appear to contradict this characterization. As shown by Figure 2, the first corrosion resistant layer (121’) and the second corrosion resistant layer (130’) are clearly separated in the vertical direction rather than being “directly joined.” For this reason, the new material of claims 1 and 4 constitutes new matter. Nevertheless, to advance prosecution, the claim will be examined as written.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This claim has been amended to recite a ratio of A/(W x D), but the specification does not provide support for this relationship. Paragraph [0118], for instance, specifies that a “ratio of A may be 20% or more when the product of W and D is 100%,” but this is not commensurate with the instant claim language. (The examiner notes that claim 11 originally recited the syntax of paragraph [0118], which was then rejected under 112(b), the problem being that the ratio described by the original disclosure is simply indeterminate.) To advance prosecution, the claim will provisionally be examined as written.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This claim asserts that the claimed focus ring increases chucking force relative to a “focus ring identical in structure but lacking chucking reinforcement area.” The examiner does not believe this language constitutes an adequate basis for comparison given that the second focus ring is defined only by what it is not, i.e., its only characteristic is that it lacks the reinforcement area. Further confounding the matter is that “chucking reinforcement area” is defined as the “region at a bottom portion of the focus ring.” This means that the comparative focus ring “lacking the chucking reinforcement area” is devoid of a bottom portion, which is mechanically nonsensical. Clarification is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of a focus ring comprising a chucking reinforcement area as satisfying the contested limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. This claim has been amended to clarify that a “ratio (V2/V1) x 100 is at least 15% when V1 is considered 100%.” However, V1 is not a percentage but an absolute value of volume, being defined earlier in the same claim a “total volume of the focus ring.” The examiner suggests deleting the phrase “when V1 is considered 100%.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamawaku et al., US 2012/0251759.
Claims 1-2, 4: Yamawaku discloses a plasma etching apparatus, comprising:
A chamber (11) configured to generate plasma (Fig. 1);
An electrostatic chuck (23) disposed in the chamber [0057];
A focus ring (25) placed on the electrostatic chuck [0058], including:
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).
Regarding the claimed features of a “body area,” “chucking reinforcement area,” “first corrosion resistant layer,” and “second corrosion resistant layer,” the examiner observes that no structural definition has been provided. Yet terms such as “area” and “layer,” absent a clear structural demarcation, merely signify an abstract region of space. As such, one may arbitrarily map these regions upon the focus ring of Yamawaku. For instance, the body area can be taken as an upper middle section of the ring, and the chucking reinforcement area can be taken as the bottommost surface of the ring which contacts the chuck. Within the latter area, one can name the uppermost 1 mm strata as the “second corrosion resistant layer” and, within the former area, one can define the uppermost 1.1 mm strata as the “first corrosion resistant layer.”
Claims 5-6: According to Applicant’s specification, the chucking enhancement layer (132) appears to simply be an open volume of space situated between two notches of the focus ring. Analogously, then, Yamawaku’s concave portion (25c) may be taken as the “chucking enhancement layer,” which, being an air layer, has a lower dielectric constant that the silicon material of the focus ring.
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.
Claim 11: One can arbitrarily define the boundary of the body part and chucking enhancement layer to achieve the claimed ratio.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku in view of Endoh et al., US 2004/0261946.
Yamawaku is silent regarding the matter of a gas layer. In supplementation, Endoh supplies a gas coolant via a supply line (46b) between a focus ring (30) and a subjacent electrostatic chuck (25) in order to maintain a temperature conducive to the instant processing operation ([0137, 0140]; Fig. 6). The flow rate of the coolant can be regulated within the claimed range by the operator availing the pressure control valve (82) – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)). It would have been obvious to provide a coolant to the interface of the focus ring and ESC as demonstrated by Endoh, since using a known technique to improve a similar device in a similar way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
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).
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 extension fee 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 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