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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: “a temperature probe shaft” [original claim(s) 10].
Election/Restrictions
Amended claim(s) 12-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Applicant was originally claiming a hold down rod (claims 12-16) and a power pin (claims 17-20). Applicant is now attempting to shift to claim “a system”.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 1-4, 9, 11 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US 2019/0013184) in view of Maeda et al (US 2010/0326957), Rice et al (US 2017/0213758), and Nagayama et al (US 2015/0114567).
Regarding claim 1:
Cui teaches a structure for interfacing with a support ring (250) used to support an edge ring (106) in a plasma chamber (100) [fig 1-2B], the structure comprising: a thermally conductive layer (silicon based thermal gasket may occupy gap 235) located between the support ring (250) and the edge ring (106) [fig 2B & 0051].
Cui does not specifically disclose a plurality of power pins.
Maeda teaches a plurality of power pins (71/75 - feeding may be carried out at two or more spots) [fig 4 & 0062-0063].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the structure of Cui to comprise a plurality of power pins, as in Maeda, to allow for greater electric power to be fed [Maeda- 0063].
Cui modified by Maeda does not specifically disclose a plurality of hold down rods.
Rice teaches a plurality of hold down rods (one or more push pins, 733) [fig 2A, 7 & 0053].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the structure of modified Cui to further comprise a plurality of hold down rods, as in Rice, to increase process yields by increasing plasma uniformity and to decrease downtime by extending the usable life of edge rings [Rice – 0067-0068].
Cui modified by Maeda and Rice does not specifically teach the thermally conductive layer being a first gel layer and a second gel, wherein the first gel layer and second gel layer are thermally conductive, and wherein the second gel layer is separated from the first gel layer at a plurality of locations.
Nagayama teaches a first gel layer (one of 25) and a second gel (another of 25), wherein the first gel layer (one of 25) and second gel layer (another of 25) are thermally conductive (thermally conductive), and wherein the second gel layer (another of 25) is separated from the first gel layer (one of 25) at a plurality of locations (see fig 3A) [fig 3A & 0026].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thermally conductive layer of modified Cui because such a material/configuration facilitates thermal conduction therebetween [Nagayama – 0026]. 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].
It is noted that both the first and second gel layers are to be formed at the bottom surface of the edge ring in the modified structure [see Cui – fig 2B and Nagayama – fig 3B]. It is also noted that the plurality of hold down rods and plurality of power pins are disclosed to be located below the bottom surface of the edge ring [see Maeda – fig 4 and Rice – fig 7]. As such, the combination of references teaches a first and second gel layer “located above the plurality of hold down rods and the plurality of power pins”. The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The claim limitations “for interfacing with a support ring used to support an edge ring in a plasma chamber”, “coupled to a bottom surface of the support ring at a plurality of locations”, “coupled to the bottom surface of the support ring at a plurality of locations to contact an electrode disposed in the support ring”, and “to be between the support ring and the edge 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).
Regarding claim 2:
The claim limitations “wherein the plurality of hold down rods are configured to move in an upward direction to remove the support ring from the plasma chamber and to move in a downward direction to secure the support ring to an insulator 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).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 11:
Modified Cui teaches the plurality of power pins (71/75) are fabricated from a metal for conduction (conductive – metals such as aluminum or titanium are conductive) [Maeda - fig 4 & 0049, 0062-0063].
The claim limitations “wherein the plurality of power pins are configured to transfer radio frequency (RF) power to the electrode embedded within the support ring”, “wherein one of the plurality of power pins is configured to extend within a power pin feed through to protect the one of the plurality of power pins, wherein the power pin feed through extends via an insulator ring into the support ring”, and “for conduction of radio frequency power received from a radio frequency generator to the electrode” 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).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Cui does not specifically teach a plurality of clasp mechanisms coupled to the plurality of hold down rods to control movement of the plurality of hold down rods.
Rice teaches a plurality of clasp mechanisms (736/737) coupled to the plurality of hold down rods (733) to control movement of the plurality of hold down rods (733) [fig 7 & 0053].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the structure of modified Cui to further comprise a plurality of clasp mechanisms coupled to a plurality of hold down rods, as in Rice, to increase process yields by increasing plasma uniformity and to decrease downtime by extending the usable life of edge rings [Rice – 0067-0068].
The claim limitations “to control movement of the plurality of hold down rods, wherein the movement is controlled to remove the support ring from the plasma chamber and to secure the support ring to an insulator 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).
Regarding claim 24:
Modified Cui teaches the edge ring (106) [Cui - fig 2B & 0045, 0051], the first (one of 25) and second gel layers (another of 25) attached to a bottom surface of the edge ring (14) [Nagayama - fig 3A-3B & 0026].
Claim(s) 5-7 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US 2019/0013184) in view of Maeda et al (US 2010/0326957), Rice et al (US 2017/0213758), and Nagayama et al (US 2015/0114567) as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 24 above, and further in view of Lenz (US 2002/0043750).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 24 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Cui teaches one of the plurality of clasp mechanisms (736/737) includes: a cylinder (736) [Rice - fig 7 & 0053]; a mount (737) coupled to the cylinder (736), wherein one of the plurality of hold down rods (733) extends into an opening formed within the mount (737) [Rice – fig 7 & 0053].
Modified Cui does not specifically teach one of the plurality of clasp mechanisms includes: an air cylinder; a piston body located within the air cylinder; a piston rod coupled to the piston body.
Lenz teaches an air cylinder (air cylinder, 332) [fig 3B, 4 & 0026]; a piston body (body of piston 416) located within the air cylinder (332) [fig 3B, 4 & 0031]; a piston rod (tip of piston 416) coupled to the piston body (body of piston 416) [fig 3B, 4 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cylinder of modified Cui to be an air cylinder with a piston body/rod located within, as in Lenz, because an air cylinder is smaller and requires less space [Lenz – 0026].
Regarding claims 6-7:
The claim limitations “wherein the piston body is configured to move in an upward direction to move the one of the plurality of hold downs rods in the upward direction to remove the support ring from the plasma chamber” and “wherein the piston body is configured to move in a downward direction to move the one of the plurality of hold downs rods in the downward direction to secure the support ring to the insulator 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).
Regarding claims 21-23:
Modified Cui does not specifically teach a plurality of air cylinders, wherein each of the plurality of air cylinders has a respective upper portion, a respective lower portion, a piston rod, and a piston body, wherein each of the plurality of air cylinders is coupled to a respective one of the plurality of power pins, wherein the upper portions are located above the lower portions; a first plurality of air fittings connected to a plurality of sides of the upper portions of the plurality of air cylinders to move the piston rods and the piston bodies in a downward direction to further move the plurality of hold down rods in the downward direction; and a second plurality of air fittings connected to a plurality of sides of the lower portions of the plurality of air cylinders to move the piston rods and the piston bodies in an upward direction to further move the plurality of hold down rods in the upward direction; wherein the first plurality of air fittings are located below the plurality of hold down rods and above the piston bodies; and wherein the second plurality of air fittings are located below the piston bodies.
Lenz teaches a plurality of air cylinders (air cylinder, 332), wherein each of the plurality of air cylinders (332) has a respective upper portion (upper portion of 332), a respective lower portion (lower portion of 332), a piston rod (tip of piston 416), and a piston body (body of piston 416), wherein each of the plurality of air cylinders is coupled to a respective one of the plurality of power pins (coupled to the apparatus), wherein the upper portions (upper portion of 332) are located above the lower portions (lower portion of 332) [fig 3B, 4 & 0026, 0031]; a first plurality of air fittings (openings through which 404 passes) connected to a plurality of sides of the upper portions of the plurality of air cylinders (upper portion of 332) [fig 3B, 4 & 0026, 0031]; and a second plurality of air fittings (420 of each air cylinder) connected to a plurality of sides of the lower portions of the plurality of air cylinders (lower portion of 332) [fig 3B, 4 & 0026, 0031]; wherein the first plurality of air fittings (openings through which 404 passes) are located below the plurality of hold down rods and above the piston bodies (see fig 3B) [fig 3B, 4 & 0026, 0031]; and wherein the second plurality of air fittings (420 of each air cylinder) are located below the piston bodies (body of piston 416) [fig 3B, 4 & 0026, 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cylinder of modified Cui to be a plurality of air cylinders with a piston body/rod located within, as in Lenz, because air cylinders are smaller and requires less space [Lenz – 0026].
The claim limitations “to move the piston rods and the piston bodies in a downward direction to further move the plurality of hold down rods in the downward direction” and “to move the piston rods and the piston bodies in an upward direction to further move the plurality of hold down rods in the upward direction” 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).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US 2019/0013184) in view of Maeda et al (US 2010/0326957), Rice et al (US 2017/0213758), and Nagayama et al (US 2015/0114567) as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 24 above, and further in view of Flanigan (US 5,863,340).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 24 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Cui does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of hold down rods has a thread.
Flanigan teaches a plurality of hold down rods (114) has a thread (threads on first end of pin 114) fig 2-3 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 5-10].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of hold down rods of modified Cui to have a thread, as in Flanigan, because such is a useful means for attaching a ring [col 4, lines 20-29].
The claim limitations “that engages with a thread within the bottom surface of the support ring to couple the plurality of hold down rods to the bottom surface” 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).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections has been withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim(s) 10 and the amendments to the specification dated 04/06/2026.
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 12-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are moot because the claims have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mun (KR 2008/0060726A), Liu et al (US 2005/0133165), Miyagawa et al (US 2008/0006207), Masuda (US 2008/0066868), and Kenworthy et al (US 2010/0044974) teach an edge ring [fig 2, 7, 1, 3B, and 3A, respectively].
14. 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.
15. 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
Prosecution Insights