DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed on June 30, 2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0258753, hereinafter Lee).
An alternative interpretation of Lee, different from the previous office action filed on 04/01/2026, has been applied.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses for a consumable member (focus ring 20, Figs. 1-2), because Applicants originally disclosed the definition of “a consumable member” as “a consumable member to be consumed by being exposed to plasma is used” ([0002] of the present application), and the focus ring 20 by Lee is positioned within the plasma processing region, directly exposed to the plasma during operation, and etched (i.e., consumed) during the operation (see discussion below), therefore, the focus ring 20 by Lee corresponds to the consumable member in the claimed invention, comprising that
a core portion (lower region 22 of the focus ring 20, Fig. 2) formed of a material having a first purity, because the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a word “portion” as “an often limited part of a whole”, therefore, the lower portion of the focus ring 20 by Lee (i.e., lower region 22, Fig. 2) corresponds to the core portion in the claimed invention, and because Applicants do not specifically claim what the material’s composition the material having a first purity has or what the material having a first purity is made of, “The focus ring 20 may be made of a semiconductor material such as, for example, silicon (Si), silicon carbide (SiC), gallium arsenide (GaAs), or the like” ([0039]), therefore, for example, the focus ring 20 by Lee can be made of silicon carbide (SiC) ceramic material; and
a protection portion (upper region 24, Fig. 2) provided at a portion worn out by plasma in a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1) around the core portion (lower region 22, Fig. 2), because Lee further discloses that “Since the focus ring 20 may be directly exposed to the plasma during the plasma treatment process, an upper portion of the focus ring 20 may be etched as the plasma treatment process is repeated. As the plasma treatment process is repeated, a level of the upper surface of the focus ring 20 may be gradually lowered.” (emphasis added, [0039]), therefore, the upper region 24 by Lee is the portion worn out by plasma,
and disposed on a side surface of the core portion, (1) because Applicants do not specifically claim that the protection portion is disposed directly on a left or right-side surface of the core portion, the side surface of the upper region 24 by Lee is disposed over, adjacent to, and along the left and right-side surface of the lower region 22 (Fig. 2), therefore, it satisfies the claimed limitation of “a protection portion disposed on a side surface of the core portion”, and (2) because Applicants do not specifically claim what geometrical orientation of the claimed plasma processing apparatus has, when Lee’s plasma processing apparatus is rotated in 90 degrees (attached and annotated Fig. 1 of Lee, below), the upper region 24 is directly disposed on a right-side surface of the lower region 22,
PNG
media_image1.png
735
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and formed of the material having a second purity higher than the first purity, because Lee further discloses that “The lower region 22 may be made of the same semiconductor material as the upper region 24, and a dopant concentration of the lower region 22 may be greater than a maximum dopant concentration of the upper region 24” (emphasis added, [0041]), and because dopants constitute impurities within the semiconductor materials, Lee teaches that the lower region 22 has a higher impurity concentration than the upper region 24. Therefore, because impurity concentration is inversely related to material’s purity, the upper region 24 by Lee corresponds to the protection region in the claimed invention having a second purity and the lower region 22 by Lee corresponds to the core region having a first purity, the second purity is higher than the first purity, as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses for a plasma processing apparatus comprising that a chamber (process chamber 60, Fig. 1); and the consumable member (focus ring 20, Figs. 1-2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses for the consumable member according to claim 1 that the material is either quartz or ceramic, because “The focus ring 20 may be made of a semiconductor material such as, for example, silicon (Si), silicon carbide (SiC), gallium arsenide (GaAs), or the like” ([0039]), therefore, for example, the focus ring 20 by Lee can be made of silicon carbide (SiC), which is a ceramic.
Regarding claim 13, Lee further discloses for the consumable member according to claim 1 that the protection portion (24, Fig. 2) is disposed on the side surface of the core portion (22, Fig. 2; see discussion in claim 1, above) with a constant thickness, because a center portion of the lower region 22 has a constant thickness below the upper region 24 (Fig. 2) such that the core portion is not worn out by the plasma during use in the plasma processing apparatus, because “Since the focus ring 20 may be directly exposed to the plasma during the plasma treatment process, an upper portion of the focus ring 20 may be etched as the plasma treatment process is repeated. As the plasma treatment process is repeated, a level of the upper surface of the focus ring 20 may be gradually lowered.” (emphasis added, [0039]), therefore, the upper region 24 by Lee is the portion worn out by plasma, but not the lower region 22, such that the lower region 22 would have a constant thickness.
Regarding claim 14, Lee further discloses for the consumable member according to claim 1 that a thickness of a worn-out portion of the protection portion (24, Fig. 2) is 0.2 to 2 millimeters, because “Fig. 9 illustrates a case in which a focus ring 22’ according to a comparative example is used, and a simulation result for a state in which an etching depth of the focus ring 22’ is 0.9 mm” (emphasis added, [0065]), therefore, the etching depth of the focus ring 22’ by Lee, which corresponds to the claimed thickness of a worn-out portion of the protection portion, within the claimed thickness range.
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, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (US 2020/0258753, hereinafter Lee) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2009/0242133, hereinafter Nakayama).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses for the consumable member according to claim 1 that wherein the consumable member (20, Figs. 1-2) is at least any one of an edge ring (edge ring 40, Figs. 1-2), a cover ring (support ring 35, Figs. 1-2), an insulation ring (insulation ring 30, Figs. 1-2) provided on a side surface of an electrostatic chuck (lower electrode 10, Figs. 1-2), because “the lower electrode 10 may be an electrostatic chuck” ([0033]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that an upper electrode cover provided on a ceiling surface of a shower head, a shield ring that presses the upper electrode cover, and a support member that supports the shower head.
However, Nakayama discloses a plasma processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) including the upper electrode 31 (comprising inner electrode 34 and outer electrode 35) disposed on a ceiling surface (or bottom surface) of the shower head 30 (Fig. 1), the O-ring 40 positioned above the upper electrode 31, which can apply mechanical pressure to the upper electrode 31, and the electrode support member 33 that supports the shower head 30 (Fig. 1). Because Applicants did not originally disclose or do not specifically claim what the shield ring refers to, where it is positioned, and/or what it is made of, the O-ring 40 by Nakayama reasonably corresponds to the shield ring in the claimed invention, as both are annual members (i.e., ring) configured to apply pressure to upper electrodes within the shower head. Also, the electrode support member 33 corresponds to the support member in the claimed invention.
Since both Lee and Nakayama teach a plasma processing apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the upper electrode arrangement, pressure-applying O-ring, and electrode support structure disclosed by Nakayama into the plasma processing apparatus in Lee, in order to effectively control plasma process conditions for dry etching of semiconductor wafers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (US 2020/0258753, hereinafter Lee) in view of Yang et al. (KR 102340823, Filed: July 6, 2020; hereinafter Yang). The teachings of Lee are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses for the consumable member according to claim 1 that the protection portion (upper region 24, Fig. 2) is formed around the core portion (lower region 22, Fig. 2).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that the protection portion is formed by a slurry casting method.
However, Yang discloses for a plasma processing apparatus that the silicon carbide (SiC) focus ring 100 (Fig. 5) including an inner portion (the claimed core portion) and outer portion (the claimed protection portion) is manufactured by mixing powdered ceramic with a binder, specifically, by mixing SiC powder and photopolymerizable polymer to form the liquid photocurable resin (emphasis added, page 3, line 36, see attached machine-translated copy), and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a word “slurry” as “a watery mixture of insoluble matter”, and therefore, the mixture of liquid photocurable resin by Yang can correspond to the slurry in the claimed invention; Yang further discloses forming the focus ring by printing and curing the liquid mixture to a desired thickness using a 3D printer (page 3, line 15, attached machine-translated copy, step S13, Fig. 2), therefore, the printing and curing of the liquid mixture by Yang corresponds to casting method in the claimed invention; because Applicants do not specifically claim what the composition the slurry has, and/or what the slurry casting method does, Yang’s printing and curing of the liquid mixture with SiC powder and binder to manufacture the focus ring would correspond to the slurry casting method in the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the silicon carbide focus ring (including lower and upper portions of Lee’s focus ring 20) using the liquid mixture-based printing and curing method, as disclosed by Yang, in order to facilitate fabrication and control material properties such as mechanical strength and electrical resistivity.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (US 2020/0258753, hereinafter Lee) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2009/0242133, hereinafter Nakayama) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Yang et al. (KR 102340823, Filed: July 6, 2020; hereinafter Yang). The teachings of Lee in view of Nakayama are discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses for the consumable member according to claim 1 that the protection portion (upper region 24, Fig. 2) is formed around the core portion (lower region 22, Fig. 2).
Lee in view of Nakayama does not explicitly disclose that the protection portion is formed by a slurry casting method.
However, Yang discloses for a plasma processing apparatus that the silicon carbide (SiC) focus ring 100 (Fig. 5) including an inner portion (the claimed core portion) and outer portion (the claimed protection portion) is manufactured by mixing powdered ceramic with a binder, specifically, by mixing SiC powder and photopolymerizable polymer to form the liquid photocurable resin (emphasis added, page 3, line 36, see attached machine-translated copy), and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a word “slurry” as “a watery mixture of insoluble matter”, and therefore, the mixture of liquid photocurable resin by Yang can correspond to the slurry in the claimed invention; Yang further discloses forming the focus ring by printing and curing the liquid mixture to a desired thickness using a 3D printer (page 3, line 15, attached machine-translated copy, step S13, Fig. 2), therefore, the printing and curing of the liquid mixture by Yang corresponds to casting method in the claimed invention; because Applicants do not specifically claim what the composition the slurry has, and/or what the slurry casting method does, Yang’s printing and curing of the liquid mixture with SiC powder and binder to manufacture the focus ring would correspond to the slurry casting method in the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the silicon carbide focus ring (including lower and upper portions of Lee’s focus ring 20) using the liquid mixture-based printing and curing method, as disclosed by Yang, in order to facilitate fabrication and control material properties such as mechanical strength and electrical resistivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights