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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 05/04/2026.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 7-20 have been withdrawn.
6. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, and 16-20 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMillin et al (US 2014/0235063).
Regarding claim 1:
McMillin teaches an edge ring (400/500) for a plasma etcher [fig 2 & 0034], the edge ring (400/500) comprising: a circular lower portion (500) having a lower opening sized to receive an electrostatic chuck (210 is an electrostatic chuck assembly) supporting a semiconductor device (220) [fig 2 & 0032, 0034]; and a circular upper portion (400) disposed on the circular lower portion (500), wherein the circular upper (400) portion and the circular lower portion (500) have different materials (400 is SiC and 500 is anodized aluminum) [fig 2 & 0034], wherein the
circular upper portion (400) comprises: a first portion (lower part of 400) having a first opening (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0032, 0034]; and a second portion (upper part of 400) disposed on the first portion (lower part of 400) and having a second opening different from the first opening (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0032, 0034].
The claim limitations “wherein both of the first portion and the circular lower portion are in contact with a sidewall of the electrostatic chuck” 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). It is noted that the electrostatic chuck is NOT a positively recited structure of the edge ring. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). It is noted that the above limitations merely defines where applicant intends to position the edge ring relative to a structure (electrostatic chuck) external therefrom. The edge ring of McMillin is capable of surrounding an electrostatic chuck of a diameter and/or shape in contact with both of the first portion and the circular lower portion.
Regarding claims 2-3:
McMillin teaches the first opening (opening of lower part of 400) is sized to receive the electrostatic chuck (210) [fig 2 & 0032, 0034]; and the second opening (opening of upper part of 400) is sized to receive the semiconductor device (220), wherein a lateral width of the second opening is substantially greater than a lateral width of the first opening (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0032, 0034]; wherein the first portion (lower part of 400) completely covers a top surface of the circular lower portion (top surface of 500) [fig 2 & 0034, 0046, 0048, 0051].
Regarding claims 4-6:
McMillin teaches a dielectric constant of the circular upper portion (400 is SiC) is substantially greater than a dielectric constant of the circular lower portion (500 is anodized aluminum) [fig 2 & 0034]; wherein an electrical conductivity of the circular lower portion (500 is anodized aluminum) is substantially greater than an electrical conductivity of the circular upper portion (400 is SiC); and wherein a material of the circular lower portion (500) is anodized aluminum (anodized aluminum), and a material of the circular upper portion (400) is silicon carbide (SiC) [fig 2 & 0034].
Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2112.01].
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that McMillin fails to teach “both of the first portion and the circular lower portion are in contact with a sidewall of the electrostatic chuck”.
In response, it is noted that the electrostatic chuck is NOT a positively recited structure of the edge ring. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). It is noted that the above limitations merely defines where applicant intends to position the edge ring relative to a structure (electrostatic chuck) external therefrom. The edge ring of McMillin is capable of surrounding an electrostatic chuck of a diameter and/or shape in contact with both of the first portion and the circular lower portion.
Applicant’s argument disregards the basics of claim construction. For example, suppose a claim is directed to a chair, wherein the chair has four legs configured to be placed on carpet. A structurally identical chair with four legs disclosed to be placed on a hardwood floor anticipates the claim. It does NOT matter that the prior art chair is placed on hardwood. Similarly, it does NOT matter that the circular portion of McMillin is physically separated from the sidewall of the depicted electrostatic chuck. The relevant inquiry is whether the edge ring of McMillin is capable of surrounding an electrostatic chuck in the manner claimed. As set forth above, the edge ring of McMillin is capable of surrounding an electrostatic chuck of a diameter and/or shape in contact with both of the first portion and the circular lower portion.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Daugherty et al (US 6,344,105) teaches an edge ring comprising a circular lower portion and a circular upper portion [fig 5].
11. 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 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.
12. 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