DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Status
The amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 21-22 are pending. In the amendment filed 02/02/2026, claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, and 13 were amended and claims 21-22 were newly added. The amendments to independent claims 1 and 13 were to add language previously added (see amendment filed 1/20/2025) that had been entered because it provided clarification to overcome the previously raised clarity issues (see office action mailed 10/25/2025, page 3-5). Applicant’s reply has returned to the previously examined independent claims that were previously entered in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program and are therefore entered again.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 2, and 13 contain references defining structures relative to a wafer size (e.g. “outer diameter of the base body being smaller than a diameter of the wafer”, “an outer diameter of the edge ring being greater than the diameter of the wafer”). It is noted that the wafer represents an article worked upon within the apparatus and that the size of the wafer placed in the apparatus may be changed. For purpose of examination on the merits, these limitations defining a structure relative to the size of the wafer (article worked upon) will be interpreted inclusive of being directed to the intended use and that the apparatus is intended to be used with a wafer such that the size requirements are met with the understanding that a differently sized wafer may be used. Applicant may wish to consider defining dimensions relative to fixed structures of the apparatus if the dimension is critical to the operation of the apparatus or critical to define the apparatus.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended such that the claims recite “a first width of the first annular channel in a radial direction of the base and a second width of the second annular channel in an axial direction of the base are smaller than or equal to twice a plasma sheath layer thickness generated when the semiconductor processing equipment performs a predetermined process at least for when the plasma sheath layer thickness is 500 micrometers.” This limitation is interpreted inclusive of requiring that the first width and the second width are smaller than or equal to twice a plasma sheath layer thickness at least for when the plasma sheath layer thickness is 500 micrometers. This limitation is interpreted inclusive of requiring that when the apparatus is operated such that the plasma sheath layer thickness is 500 micrometers, the first width and the second width are smaller than or equal to twice a plasma sheath layer thickness (i.e. they are smaller than or equal to twice 500 micrometers). The claim is not interpreted as requiring operation at a plasma sheath thickness of 500 micrometers and is not interpreted as requiring that the first width and the second width are smaller than or equal to twice a plasma sheath layer thickness when the apparatus is operated with plasma sheath layer thicknesses other than 500 micrometers.
In claim 6, line 2-3 of the claim recites “an end surface of the second annular protrusion facing the wafer”. The limitation “facing the wafer” is interpreted as modifying “an end surface” rather than “the second annular protrusion” because “the second annular protrusion facing the wafer” would lack antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 11, the term “surface that is processed with insulation” is interpreted as a product by process limitation and consistent with [0043] of the instant specification as requiring that the structure of the edge ring includes a plasma exposed surface of the edge ring has a surface oxidation layer or a ceramic coating. The limitation “such that the upper surface of the edge ring is chargeable in the plasma environment to form a negative potential” is interpreted as being directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed. It has been held that claims directed to 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). Also, 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)
In claim 12, the claim recites “edges of the base and the edge ring are rounded edges”. This limitation is interpreted inclusive of at least one edge of the base and at least one edge of the edge ring are rounded. Note that there does not appear to be discussion or inclusion of all edges of each structure being rounded.
Claim 21 is interpreted as being directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed. It has been held that claims directed to 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). Also, 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 22 is interpreted as being directed to the article worked upon (i.e. that the wafer includes insulation material) which is consistent with [0025] of the specification and requiring the that base and edge ring may be operated in a grounded manner. Regarding specifically the wafer containing insulation material, Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 12-13, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstinsky (prev. presented US 6,350,320), in view of Koshiishi (prev. presented US 2007/0169891).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Sherstinsky teaches a carrier device (Fig 3-5 abstract) in semiconductor processing equipment (col 1, ln 1-5) comprising: a base (34 Fig 3-5 col 4, ln 10-25) configured to carry a wafer (substrate 100 [0037]) and including: a base body (34 Fig 3-5 col 4, ln 10-25) configured to carry the wafer (substrate 36 Fig 3-5, col 4, ln 10-25), an outer diameter of the base body being smaller than a diameter of the wafer (5, see outer diameter of upper portion of 34 is smaller than an outer diameter of the substrate wafer 36 and note that the apparatus is capable of holding a substrate with a larger diameter); and an edge ring (combination of 72, 74, 76 Fig 5, see col 6, ln 10-35 and col 7, ln 5-20) surrounding the base (Fig 5 and col 6, ln 10-35), an outer diameter of the edge ring being greater than the diameter of the wafer (Fig 5, also note this is directed to the intended article worked upon and the apparatus may be used with a smaller wafer); wherein: an outer circumferential surface of the base body faces and is spaced from an inner circumferential surface of the edge ring (Fig 5, col 7, ln 55-65) to form a first annular channel (annular purge gas channel 126 Fig 5, col 7, ln 55-65) the first annular channel is configured to communicate with a gas supply system (63, 62 Fig 5, 56 Fig 4 and col 5, ln 45-65); when the base body carries the wafer (Fig 3-5), an upper surface of the edge ring faces and is spaced from a lower surface of the wafer to form a second annular channel (128 Fig 5 and col 7, ln 45-55); the first annular channel communicates with the second annular channel (Fig 3-5). In a different embodiment, Sherstinsky teaches a gap between the bottom of the wafer and a surface of the ring below the wafer (gap 212 in Fig 8) is between about 0.010 inches (about 0.25 mm) and about 0.030 inches (about 0.76 mm) (col 10, ln 1-5) but is silent as to the gaps in the cited embodiment and is silent as to the gap between the outer surface of the base and the inner surface of the ring (first annular channel). Therefore, Sherstinsky fails to teach a first width of the first annular channel in a radial direction of the base and a second width of the second annular channel in an axial direction of the base are smaller than or equal to twice a plasma sheath layer thickness generated when the semiconductor processing equipment performs a predetermined process. In the same field of endeavor of a carrier device in semiconductor processing (abstract), Koshiishi teaches an edge ring (structure 8 & 9 Fig 2 [0074]) includes a first annular channel between an outer circumferential surface of the base body and an inner circumferential surface of the edge ring (portion having width C3 Fig 2 [0092]) and teaches a second annular channel between an upper surface of the ring facing the substrate (upper surface portion of 9 Fig 2 facing wafer W) and the substrate (wafer W Fig 2) (note this is the gap having width C2 [0092]) and teaches that the first annular channel should have a width (C3) of 0.4 mm ≤ C3 [0092] and that the second annular channel should have a width (C2) of 0.3 mm ≤ C2 [0092] and discloses operation with plasma sheath thickness of 3 mm [0102]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sherstinsky to include operating with the disclosed plasma sheath thickness of 3 mm of Koshiishi and the disclosed first annular gap of = 0.4 mm and second annular surface gaps of = 0.3 mm because Koshiishi teaches these size gaps prevent plasma from reaching the backside surface of the semiconductor wafer [0092]. Note that Sherstinsky also teaches the backside gas flow is to prevent unwanted deposition on the edge and backside of the substrate (col 9, ln 5-40) and teaches operation with plasma (col 4, ln 5-10). Therefore the purpose of the backside gas channels of Sherstinsky is to exclude processing gas or plasma from the backside edge and Koshiishi demonstrates a size range which enables prevention of plasma from the backside edge space. Note that in this combination the gaps of 0.4 mm and 0.3 mm are smaller than twice the plasma width (taught as 3 mm) and are smaller than or equal to twice the plasma sheath layer thickness at least when the plasma sheath layer thickness is 500 micrometers (500 micrometers = 0.5 mm). The apparatus is capable of being used with other plasma sheath thicknesses as low as 0.2 mm (200 micrometers) while still meeting the instant claim limitations regarding the gaps being less than or equal to twice the plasma sheath thickness. Additionally note that the apparatus is capable of being operated in a manner in which the plasma sheath layer thickness is 500 micrometers.
Regarding claim 2, Sherstinsky teaches a first annular protrusion (protrusion having surfaces 118 and 116 Fig 5) protrudes from a surface of the edge ring (Fig 5); a radial distance exists between an inner circumferential surface of the first annular protrusion and the side surface of the wafer (see Fig 5, there is a gap over which a portion of the surface of 120 is exposed). Sherstinsky fails to explicitly teach a surface of the first annular protrusion is flush with the surface of the wafer and the radial distance is greater than twice the plasma sheath layer thickness. Initially it is noted that the apparatus of Sherstinsky is capable of being provided with a thicker wafer such that the upper surface is flush with the thicker wafer without modifying the apparatus. Further the apparatus of Sherstinsky is capable of being provided with a wafer having a smaller diameter that meets the requirement to be twice the plasma sheath. Also note that as indicated with claim 1, the apparatus of the combination is capable of being operated with a smaller plasma sheath such that the gap requirement is met. Additionally and/or alternatively, Koshiishi teaches a gap between the wafer (W) and a protrusion (portion 8 Fig 2) of the ring upper surface is a width C1 which preferably is of a size such that 1.0 mm ≤C1≤ 1.5 mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus to include at least this gap size because Koshiishi teaches this size range may be used with successful results. Note that when the apparatus is operated with a lower plasma sheath thickness such as 0.2-0.5 mm, the disclosed range of Koshiishi includes values such that the radial distance is greater than twice the plasma sheath layer thickness while the first and second widths retain values that are less than or equal to twice the plasma sheath thickness. Also again note that the apparatus is capable of being operated with a smaller substrate which will result in a larger gap. Regarding the first annular protrusion is flush with the surface of the wafer, Koshiishi teaches this is conventionally known in the prior art for focus rings (Fig 15-17 and [0013]). Additionally, Koshiishi teaches that even when a ring with initially a higher surface is used, it may be retained for use when the height difference between the ring and the substrate is 0 (i.e. on the same plane) [0108] further indicating that arranging the ring and substrate such that the upper surface of the protrusion is flush with the surface of the wafer is well known in the art of plasma processing with edge rings and would have provided a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed with a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 12, Sherstinsky teaches edges of the base (34 Fig 5) and the edge ring (see portion 72 or 76 of the edge ring Fig 5) are rounded (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 13, Sherstinsky in view of Koshiishi remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 above. Sherstinsky also teaches the carrier device of claim 1 is in a semiconductor processing equipment (apparatus of Fig 1) and that the equipment comprises a process chamber (10 Fig 1), an upper electrode mechanism (13 Fig 1) including a showerhead (13 Fig 1) arranged at a top in the process chamber (Fig 1); and an upper electrode power supply electrically connected to the showerhead (16 Fig 1); and a lower electrode mechanism (34 Fig 1, note the electrode is grounded as discussed in col 6, ln 1-5 indicating coil 67 is used to ground the gas supply to the plate 34) including a carrier device configured to carry a wafer and grounded (see Fig 5 and analogous limitations of claim 1 as cited above).
Regarding claim 21, the apparatus of the combination as applied to claim 1 is capable of being operated without supplying gas to the first annular channel.
Regarding claim 22, the apparatus of the combination as applied to claim 1 is capable of being operated with an insulated substrate and with the edge ring and base grounded. Sherstinsky does not specify a potential must be applied to the base or ring and Koshiishi demonstrates that the power supply 21 (Fig 2) is connected to ground such that when the power supply is not operated the base and edge ring will be grounded (Fig 2) [0078].
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstinsky in view of Koshiishi as applied to claim 1-2, 4, 5, and 7 above, and further in view of Huang (prev. presented US 2005/0155718).
Regarding claim 3, Sherstinsky teaches the edge ring includes a channel member (combination of 72, 74, and 76 Fig 5), wherein an inner circumferential surface of the channel member faces and is spaced from the outer circumferential surface of the base body to form the first annular channel (annular purge gas channel 126 Fig 5, col 7, ln 55-65); a surface of the channel member facing the wafer faces and is spaced from the surface of the wafer facing the channel member to form the second annular channel (128 Fig 5 and col 7, ln 45-55). Sherstinsky fails to teach the edge ring includes an annular body as claimed and therefore fails to teach the limitations regarding the annular body. In the same field of endeavor of a carrier device for semiconductor processing [0001] (Fig 5A), Huang teaches the edge ring (combination of 91 and 70 Fig 5A) includes an annular body (91 Fig 5A) and a channel member (70 Fig 5A) connected to each other (Fig 5A), wherein: an outer circumferential surface of the base body (92 Fig 5A) is spaced from an inner circumferential surface of the annular body (Fig 5A, spaced from inner surface of 91 that contacts surface 74 of ring 70 as shown in Fig 5A); the channel member (70 Fig 5A) is arranged between the outer circumferential surface of the base body (92 Fig 5A) and the inner circumferential surface of the annular body (inner surface of 91 that contacts surface 74 of ring 70 as shown in Fig 5A); an outer circumferential surface of the channel member abuts against the inner circumferential surface of the annular body (Fig 5A) [0034]; and the annular body includes a protrusion protruding relative to a surface of the channel member (upper surface of the ring 91 that protrudes above ring 70 Fig 5A), and the protrusion is the first annular protrusion (the upper surface of ring 91 that protrudes above ring 70 is part of the first annular protrusion). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ring arrangement of Sherstinsky to include the shadow ring 91 of Huang because Huang teaches this is a typical structure that is conventional [0034] and Sherstinsky teaches it is known to use shadow rings to mitigate unwanted deposition (col 1, ln 50-60).
Regarding claim 4, Sherstinsky teaches an axial cross-sectional shape of the first annular channel is a bent line shape (Fig 5 see channel 126) comprising a first annular sub-channel (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below), a second annular-sub channel (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below), and a third annular sub-channel (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below) that communicate with each other in sequence (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below); the base body includes a body and the second annular protrusion protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the body (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above); the second annular protrusion includes a first chamfered inclined surface at an end of the second annular protrusion (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below); the edge ring includes and a channel member (combination of 72, 74, and 76 Fig 5); the channel member of the edge ring includes a second chamfered inclined surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below); the second annular sub-channel is formed between the first chamfered inclined surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below) and the second chamfered inclined surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below); and an inner circumferential surface of the channel member includes a first sub-surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below), a second sub-surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below), a third sub-surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below), and the second chamfered inclined surface formed between the second sub-surface and the first sub-surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III below). Sherstinsky fails to teach the edge ring includes an annular body as claimed and therefore fails to teach the annular body and channel member connected. In the same field of endeavor of a carrier device for semiconductor processing [0001] (Fig 5A), Huang teaches the edge ring (combination of 91 and 70 Fig 5A) includes an annular body (91 Fig 5A) and a channel member (70 Fig 5A) connected to each other (Fig 5A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ring arrangement of Sherstinsky to include the shadow ring 91 of Huang because Huang teaches this is a typical structure that is conventional [0034] and Sherstinsky teaches it is known to use shadow rings to mitigate unwanted deposition (col 1, ln 50-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
692
1313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
692
1313
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Sherstinsky teaches the base body includes a body and the second annular protrusion protrudes from an outer circumferential surface of the body (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above); the first sub-surface faces and is spaced from the outer circumferential surface of the body to form the first annular sub-channel (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above); and the third sub-surface faces and is spaced from an outer circumferential surface of the second annular protrusion to form a third annular sub-channel (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above).
Regarding claim 6, Sherstinsky teaches the first chamfered inclined surface is formed between the end surface of the second annular protrusion facing the wafer (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above; note wafer is 36 in Fig 5 and note for Version III the end surface is an upper portion of the angled surface and the chamfered surface is the lower portion of the angled surface, the division is visible in the enlarged circular segment in the upper left) and the outer circumferential surface of the second annular protrusion; and the second chamfered inclined surface faces and is spaced from the first chamfered inclined surface(see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above, note that for Version II the ends of the first and second chamfered surfaces face each other also note that this additionally represents a mere change in shape of the angling of the chamfered surfaces).
Regarding claim 7, Sherstinsky teaches the channel member includes a first ring (76 Fig 5) and a second ring (combination of 72 and 74 Fig 5) stacked in sequence from bottom to top, wherein: an inner circumferential surface of the second ring is the first sub-surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above); an inner circumferential surface of the first ring is the third sub-surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version I, II, or III above); the second ring includes a protrusion protruding relative to the inner circumferential surface of the first ring (see annotated Fig 5 Version II or III above); and an end surface of the protrusion facing the first ring is the second sub-surface (see annotated Fig 5 Version II or III above).
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claims 3 (i.e. the inclusion of the annular body) above and as Sherstinsky in view of Koshiishi is applied to claims 4, 5, and 7 above. Sherstinsky as applied teaches the second ring (combination of 72 and 74 Fig 5) is separate from the first ring (76 Fig 5). Huang as applied teaches the annular body (91 Fig 5A) is integral with a lower ring (91a Fig 5A, analogous to the first ring) below an upper ring (70 analogous to the second ring). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination to include ring 76 of Sherstinsky is integral with the annular body 91 of Huang in place of portion 91a because they serve the same function of supporting an upper ring.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstinsky in view of Koshiishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gomi (prev. presented US 2011/0263123).
Regarding claim 9, Sherstinsky teaches the base includes a first step member arranged at bottom of the base body (lower step member of 34 having surface 124 Fig 5) and protruding relative to the outer circumferential surface of the base body (lower step member of 34 having surface 124 protrudes relative to the upper outer circumferential surface of the portion of 34 contacting substrate 36 Fig 5) and including an inlet channel (inlet channel is annular groove 65 Fig 5, col 5, ln 50-65); the edge ring is arranged at the first step member (combination of 72, 74, 76 are arranged at the first step member as shown in Fig 5); an outlet (top of 65 Fig 5 col 5, ln 50-65) of the inlet channel communicates with the first annular channel (outlet of the inlet channel is upper end of 65 in Fig 5 at lower surface of ring 76 and this communicates with the space between the base 34 and the ring that is a combination of 72, 74, and 76 Fig 5 col 5, ln 50-65); and an inlet end of the inlet channel is configured to communicate with the gas supply system (configured to communicate with the gas supply system via line 63, 62 Fig 5 col 5, ln 50-65). Sherstinsky fails to teach a plurality of outlets of the inlet channel, the inlet channel includes a plurality of vertical holes that is uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the first annular channel; outlets of the plurality of vertical holes are used as the outlets of the inlet channel; and the inlet channel further includes a plurality of horizontal channels, inlets of the plurality of vertical holes communicate with outlets of the plurality of horizontal channels in a one-to-one correspondence, and inlets of the plurality of horizontal channels converge at a center position of the base and communicate with the gas supply system. In the same field of endeavor of carrier devices in semiconductor processing equipment (abstract Fig 1, 5, 6), Gomi teaches a plurality of outlets (96 Fig 6) are an obvious alternative to a single annular discharge outlet (72 Fig 2) [0067] for supplying gas to a space between the wafer supporting surface and an edge ring (see Fig 4-5 and [0067-0068]. Gomi teaches the vertical holes (96 Fig 6) are uniformly distributed [0068] along the circumferential direction of the annular channel (Fig 4-6 and [0067-0068]) and the that outlets of the vertical holes are used as the outlets of the inlet channel (channel 80 Fig 5) [0067]. Gomi further teaches the inlet channel further includes a plurality of horizontal channels (74B Fig 1 and 3), inlets of the plurality of vertical holes communicate with outlets of the plurality of horizontal channels in a one-to-one correspondence (74B Fig 1 and 3), and inlets of the plurality of horizontal channels converge at a center position of the base (74B Fig 3) and communicate with the gas supply system (via 74 Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sherstinsky to include a plurality of outlets of the inlet channel, the inlet channel includes a plurality of vertical holes that is uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the first annular channel; outlets of the plurality of vertical holes are used as the outlets of the inlet channel; and the inlet channel further includes a plurality of horizontal channels, inlets of the plurality of vertical holes communicate with outlets of the plurality of horizontal channels in a one-to-one correspondence, and inlets of the plurality of horizontal channels converge at a center position of the base and communicate with the gas supply system as taught by Gomi because Gomi teaches this is a functional alternative to a single annular outlet (embodiment of Sherstinsky) for the same purpose of providing the edge gas to a gap between the edge ring and the substrate supporting surface (Fig 4-6 and [0067-0068]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherstinsky in view of Koshiishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mikami (prev. presented US 2020/0273673).
Regarding claim 11, Sherstinsky is silent as to a surface of the edge ring that will be exposed in a plasma environment is a surface that is processed with insulation (note claim interpretation section above). Sherstinsky does appear to suggest the upper surface of the edge ring will have some amount of deposition of a ceramic (TiN) during processing (col 8, ln 20-37). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of carrier devices in semiconductor processing equipment (abstract Fig 1A), Mikami teaches performing an oxidation process to form an oxide layer on the edge ring (15 Fig 1A) to protect the surfaces and reduce wear during operation [0037-0038], [0048]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sherstinsky to include forming a protective oxide layer on the edge ring because Mikami teaches this provides protection from wear during plasma operation [0037-0038], [0048]. Regarding such that the upper surface of the edge ring is chargeable in the plasma environment to form a negative potential, this limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be operated, as explained above. The apparatus of the combination is capable of being operated in a manner in which the upper surface of the edge ring is charged to form a negative potential.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art fails to teach or render obvious the amended limitations of claim 9 (reply p11-13). This is not persuasive because Gomi clearly shows the vertical gas outlets connected with horizontal channels 74B and Fig 3 clearly shows horizontal channels 74B converging at a center location 74A. Note that Gomi clearly demonstrates 96 and 72 are the same structure (Fig 6). Therefore the argument that Gomi does note teach or render obvious the limitations amended to claim 9 is not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments regarding claim 11, the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be operated as explained above. The apparatus of the combination as applied teaches the structure and is therefore capable of being operated in the same manner.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0256435 teaches gap E (Fig 2B) is 1000 microns or less [0037]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716