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 .
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 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
Responsive to communication filed 08/04/2026
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 1-20 are rejected
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A, drawn to claims 1-20
in the reply filed on 08/04/2026, is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US 20200234929) in view of Chang et al. (US 20190385891).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ogata teaches a substrate processing apparatus (apparatus 1) comprising: a chamber; an electrostatic chuck (mounting table 2) in the chamber (chamber 1) and configured to support a substrate;
a shower head (showerhead 16) in the chamber and above the electrostatic chuck (as evidenced by Fig. 1, showerhead 16 is above the mounting table 2);
and a ring assembly (focus ring 5 and inner wall member 3a) for a semiconductor process in the chamber and surrounding the electrostatic chuck,
wherein the ring assembly for the semiconductor process includes: a focus ring (focus ring 5) having a central axis extending in a first direction;
an outer ring (inner wall member 3a) surrounding the focus ring (the inner wall member 3a surrounds the focus ring 5) [Fig. 1 & 0023-0025].
Ogata does not specifically disclose a top ring on a top surface of the outer ring.
Chang teaches and a top ring (top ring 250) on a top surface of the outer ring (insulator ring 240) [Fig. 2 & 0033, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Ogata to include a top ring above the outer ring, as in Chang, to protect lower rings from the plasma environment [Chang- 0033].
Regarding Claim 2:
Ogata teaches a gas supplier (gas supply unit 15) connected to the chamber, wherein the gas supplier is configured to inject a process gas onto the electrostatic chuck (gas supply unit 15 is fluidly connected to showerhead 16) [Fig. 1 & 0032].
Regarding Claim 3:
Ogata teaches a temperature controller (coolant flow path 2d) configured to control a temperature of the substrate placed on the electrostatic chuck (the mounting table 2 can be controlled to a predetermined temperature by circulating a proper coolant, e.g., cooling water or the like, through the coolant flow path 2d) [Fig. 1 & 0027].
Regarding Claim 4:
Ogata teaches wherein the gas supplier includes a mass flow controller (MFC 15b) configured to electrically control a flow rate of the process gas (the controller 100 is, e.g., a computer, and controls the respective components of the plasma processing apparatus 10; the MFC 15b control gas flowing through the supply line 15a) [Fig. 1 & 0033, 0039].
Regarding Claim 5:
Ogata teaches wherein a top surface of the focus ring is positioned at a lower vertical level than a top surface of the electrostatic chuck (as evidenced by Figs. 1-2, the focus ring 5 has a lower surface at a lower height than a top surface of the mounting table 2) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0042].
Regarding Claim 6:
Ogata teaches wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a plasma electrode (base 2a) configured to generate plasma (base 2a serves as a lower electrode) [Fig. 1 & 0024-0025].
Regarding Claim 10:
Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the top ring includes a silicon (Si) material.
Chang teaches wherein the top ring includes a silicon (Si) material (the top ring 250 may be fabricated from silicon or the like) [Fig. 2 & 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Ogata to include a top ring above the outer ring, as in Chang, to protect lower rings from the plasma environment [Chang- 0033].
Regarding Claim 13:
Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the top ring includes a material different from the outer ring.
Chang teaches wherein the top ring includes a material different from the outer ring (the top ring 250 may be fabricated from silicon or the like while the second insulator ring 240 may comprise of quartz) [Fig. 2 & 0029, 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Ogata to include a top ring above the outer ring, as in Chang, to protect lower rings from the plasma environment [Chang- 0033].
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US 20200234929) in view of Chang et al. (US 20190385891), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, and 13 above, and further in view of Chattre et al. (US 20150179412) and Sasaki et al. (US 20220157573).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10, and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein an inner surface of the focus ring includes a first inner surface and a second inner surface, wherein the first inner surface extends from one of a top surface of the focus ring and a bottom surface of the focus ring to the second inner surface of the focus ring, and wherein the first inner surface is closer to the electrostatic chuck than the second inner surface.
Chattre teaches wherein an inner surface of the focus ring includes a first inner surface (edge step 212) and a second inner surface (inner angular surface 222),
wherein the first inner surface extends from one of a top surface (horizontal surface 264) of the focus ring and a bottom surface (lower horizontal surface 231) of the focus ring to the second inner surface of the focus ring (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the edge step 212 extends from a top surface of the edge ring 200 to the inner angular surface 222),
and wherein the first inner surface is closer to the electrostatic chuck than the second inner surface (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the edge step 212 is closer to the support 300 than the angular surface 222) [Fig. 3, 4 & 0022, 0042-0043].
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the second inner surface of the focus ring extends from the first inner surface of the focus ring to the other one of the top surface of the focus ring and the bottom surface of the focus ring.
Sasaki teaches wherein the second inner surface of the focus ring extends from the first inner surface of the focus ring to the other one of the top surface of the focus ring and the bottom surface of the focus ring (the inclined portion S13 extends to the bottom surface of the first member M1) [Fig. 3, 5 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second inner surface of Modified Ogata to extend to the bottom surface of the focus ring, as in Sasaki, to reduce reaction byproduct adhesion [Sasaki - 0041].
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein an angle formed by the first inner surface with the first direction is different from an angle formed by the second inner surface with the first direction.
Chattre teaches wherein an angle formed by the first inner surface with the first direction is different from an angle formed by the second inner surface with the first direction (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the angular surface 222 has a different angle from edge step 212) [Fig. 3, 4 & 0022, 0042-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Ogata to include two inner surfaces wherein one surface is angled, as in Chattre, to further protect a substrate support while still maintaining uniform etching rates [Chattre - 0018-0019, 0022-0024, 0036]. Furthermore, Chattre establishes that using an angled surface is a known technique in the art. As such, utilizing an angled surface for a focus ring would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein a top surface of the focus ring has a first inner diameter, wherein a bottom surface of the focus ring has a second inner diameter, and wherein the first inner diameter is smaller than the second inner diameter.
Chattre teaches wherein a top surface of the focus ring has a first inner diameter, wherein a bottom surface of the focus ring has a second inner diameter, and wherein the first inner diameter is smaller than the second inner diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the horizontal surface 264 is at a smaller diameter than the lower horizontal surface 231) [Fig. 2 & 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Ogata to include two inner surfaces wherein one surface is angled, as in Chattre, to further protect a substrate support while still maintaining uniform etching rates [Chattre - 0018-0019, 0022-0024, 0036]. Furthermore, Chattre establishes that using an angled surface is a known technique in the art. As such, utilizing an angled surface for a focus ring would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the first inner surface of the focus ring is parallel to the first direction, and wherein the second inner surface of the focus ring is at an acute angle with the first direction.
Chattre teaches wherein the first inner surface of the focus ring is parallel to the first direction (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the edge step 212 is parallel with a first direction), and wherein the second inner surface of the focus ring is at an acute angle with the first direction (the angles for the chamfered surface can be calculated using the given dimensions; see the figure below) [Fig. 4 & 0042-0043, Claim 32].
PNG
media_image1.png
715
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Ogata to include two inner surfaces wherein one surface is angled, as in Chattre, to further protect a substrate support while still maintaining uniform etching rates [Chattre - 0018-0019, 0022-0024, 0036]. Furthermore, Chattre establishes that using an angled surface is a known technique in the art. As such, utilizing an angled surface for a focus ring would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the acute angle is greater than 1° and less than or equal to 5°.
Chattre teaches wherein the acute angle is greater than 1° and less than or equal to 5° (the angles for the chamfered surface can be calculated using the given dimensions; see the figure above) [Fig. 4 & 0042-0043, Claim 32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Ogata to include two inner surfaces wherein one surface is angled, as in Chattre, to further protect a substrate support while still maintaining uniform etching rates [Chattre - 0018-0019, 0022-0024, 0036]. Furthermore, Chattre establishes that using an angled surface is a known technique in the art. As such, utilizing an angled surface for a focus ring would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US 20200234929) in view of Chang et al. (US 20190385891) and Chattre et al. (US 20150179412).
Regarding Claim 14:
Ogata teaches A substrate processing apparatus (apparatus 1) comprising a ring assembly (focus ring 5 and inner wall member 3a), wherein the ring assembly comprises: a focus ring (focus ring 5) having a central axis extending in a first direction; an outer ring (inner wall member 3a) surrounding the focus ring (the inner wall member 3a surrounds the focus ring 5) [Fig. 1 & 0023-0025].
Ogata does not specifically disclose a top ring on the outer ring.
Chang teaches and a top ring (top ring 250) on the outer ring (insulator ring 240) [Fig. 2 & 0033, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Ogata to include a top ring above the outer ring, as in Chang, to protect lower rings from the plasma environment [Chang- 0033].
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein a top surface of the focus ring has a first inner diameter, and a bottom surface of the focus ring has a second inner diameter, wherein the first inner diameter is smaller than the second inner diameter, wherein an inner surface of the focus ring includes a first inner surface and a second inner surface, and wherein an angle formed by the first inner surface with the first direction is different from an angle formed by the second inner surface with the first direction.
Chattre teaches wherein a top surface of the focus ring has a first inner diameter,
and a bottom surface of the focus ring has a second inner diameter,
wherein the first inner diameter is smaller than the second inner diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the horizontal surface 264 is at a smaller diameter than the lower horizontal surface 231),
wherein an inner surface of the focus ring includes a first inner surface (edge step 212) and a second inner surface (angular surface 222),
and wherein an angle formed by the first inner surface with the first direction is different from an angle formed by the second inner surface with the first direction (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the angular surface 222 has a different angle from edge step 212) [Fig. 3, 4 & 0022, 0042-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Ogata to include two inner surfaces wherein one surface is angled, as in Chattre, to further protect a substrate support while still maintaining uniform etching rates [Chattre - 0018-0019, 0022-0024, 0036]. Furthermore, Chattre establishes that using an angled surface is a known technique in the art. As such, utilizing an angled surface for a focus ring would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Regarding Claim 16:
Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the top ring and the focus ring cover an entire top surface of the outer ring, and the top surface of the outer ring is not exposed.
Chang teaches wherein the top ring and the focus ring cover an entire top surface of the outer ring, and the top surface of the outer ring is not exposed (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the top ring 250 covers the entirety of the top surface of the insulator ring 240) [Fig. 2 & 0033, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Ogata to include a top ring above the outer ring, as in Chang, to protect lower rings from the plasma environment [Chang- 0033].
Regarding Claim 17:
Ogata teaches wherein the focus ring includes Si or silicon carbide (SiC) (the focus ring 5 may be made of silicon), wherein the outer ring includes quartz (inner wall member 3a may comprise of quartz) [Fig. 1 & 0024].
Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the top ring includes silicon (Si).
Chang teaches and wherein the top ring includes silicon (Si) (the top ring 250 may comprise of silicon) [Fig. 2 & 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Ogata to include a top ring above the outer ring, as in Chang, to protect lower rings from the plasma environment [Chang- 0033].
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Ogata (Ogata modified by Chang) does not specifically disclose wherein the acute angle is greater than 1° and less than or equal to 5°.
Chattre teaches wherein the acute angle is greater than 1° and less than or equal to 5° (the angles for the chamfered surface can be calculated using the given dimensions; see the figure below) [Fig. 4 & 0042-0043, Claim 32].
PNG
media_image1.png
715
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Ogata to include two inner surfaces wherein one surface is angled, as in Chattre, to further protect a substrate support while still maintaining uniform etching rates [Chattre - 0018-0019, 0022-0024, 0036]. Furthermore, Chattre establishes that using an angled surface is a known technique in the art. As such, utilizing an angled surface for a focus ring would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Regarding Claim 20:
Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the top ring includes a material different from the outer ring.
Chang teaches wherein the top ring includes a material different from the outer ring (the top ring 250 may comprise of silicon while the insulator ring 240 may comprise of quartz) [Fig. 2 & 0029, 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Ogata to include a top ring above the outer ring, as in Chang, to protect lower rings from the plasma environment [Chang- 0033].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US 20200234929) in view of Chang et al. (US 20190385891) and Chattre et al. (US 20150179412), as applied to claims 14-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Doan et al. (US 20150001180).
The limitations of claims 14-17 and 19-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the top ring does not vertically overlap the focus ring.
Although Doan does not specifically disclose "wherein the top ring does not vertically overlap the focus ring," Doan does disclose that the dimensions of a top ring is a result effective variable. Specifically, Doan teaches that adjusting top ring dimensions can change substrate edge reaction rates [Doan - 0052, 0059-0060, 0062]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum dimensions for an outer ring to obtain desired reaction rates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The applicant is asked to consider Ko (US 20240021417) which seems to contain substantially similar structures to the claimed invention and was allowed for structures that also seem to be present in the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Ishida et al. (US 20220013338) and Ikegami (US 20210391151) teach ring assemblies [Ishida – Fig. 2; Ikegami – Fig. 3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
