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 03/09/2026.
4. Claims 1-45 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 15-16, and 20-23 have been amended.
6. Claims 24-45 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 5 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 39:
Claims 5 and 39 recite “wherein the threaded side surface has a plurality of spiral threads that form a gap from the top surface of the one of the plurality of spiral threads, wherein the gap extends from and including 0.01 millimeters (mm) to a value less than 1 mm to reduce chances of arcing within the gap”. It is noted that nothing in the instant specification at the time of filing provides support for said limitations. [0048] merely describes a gap between the top surface TS of the slot 125 and the fastener. Absolutely nowhere does the instant specification set forth dimensions of a gap from the top surface of the one of the plurality of spiral threads.
Regarding claims 40-41:
Claims 40-41 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 39.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 5, 24, 37, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 39:
Claims 5 and 39 recite “wherein the threaded side surface has a plurality of spiral threads that form a gap from the top surface of the one of the plurality of spiral threads, wherein the gap extends from and including 0.01 millimeters (mm) to a value less than 1 mm to reduce chances of arcing within the gap”. It is unclear how a gap from the top surface of the one of the plurality of spiral threads could possibly reduce chances of arcing within the gap. Furthermore, contrary to the claim, the specification sets forth that a gap between the top surface TS of the slot 125 and the fastener reduces the chances of arcing [0048]. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) [MPEP 2173.03]. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, the claim has been interpreted consistent with the specification to mean “wherein the threaded side surface has a plurality of spiral threads, and the plurality of fasteners of the plurality of threaded fastener holes
Regarding claims 24 and 37:
Claims 24 and 37 recite the limitation "the second portion of the second gel layer" in claims 20 and 22, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean "[[the]] a second portion of the second gel layer".
Regarding claims 40-41:
Claims 40-41 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 39.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 1-9, 14-19, 42-43, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 5,863,340) in view of [Kenworthy et al (US 2010/0044974) OR Mun (KR 2008/0060726A)].
Regarding claim 1:
Flanigan teaches an edge ring (102), the edge ring (102) having an annular body (body of 102) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13], comprising: the annular body having a bottom side (bottom of 102), a top side (top of 102), an inner side (inner side of 102), and an outer side (outer side of 102) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13]; and a plurality of threaded fastener holes (threaded bore, 116 – it is disclosed that the invention can include one or more anti-rotation pins coupled to a similar number of brackets) fabricated into the annular body (body of 102) along the bottom side (bottom of 102), each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (116) having a threaded inner surface (threaded bore), wherein the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 102) includes a first portion (inner portion of bottom of 102), a second portion (middle portion of bottom of 102), and a third portion (outer portion of bottom of 102) having a horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10].
Although Flanigan discloses a plurality of threaded fastener holes (threaded bore, 116 – it is disclosed that the invention can include one or more anti-rotation pins coupled to a similar number of brackets) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10], Flanigan does not explicitly disclose the plurality of threaded fastener holes form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side.
Kenworthy teaches a plurality of holes (303) form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side (see fig 3A) [fig 3A-3B & 0035].
Similarly, Mun teaches a plurality of holes (421) form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side (any three holes of 421) [fig 2-3 & page 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of threaded fastener holes of Flanigan to form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side, as in Kenworthy/Mun, because Flanigan teaches one or more anti-rotation may be used and Kenworthy/Mun teach the claimed number/orientation of holes is effective [Kenworthy – 0035 and Mun – page 4]. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
The claim limitations “surrounding a chuck in a plasma processing chamber”, “that is configured to be secured over a support ring and disposed at least partially over the chuck and a base ring that surrounds the support ring”, “for receiving a respective one of a plurality of fasteners used for securing the annular body to the support ring”, “wherein the first portion is configured to be thermally conductively coupled to the chuck, the second portion is configured to be thermally conductively coupled to the support ring, and the third portion is configured to be located above and configured to face the base 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:
Flanigan teaches the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 102), the second portion (middle portion of bottom of 102) and the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 102) are contiguous with each other and together define the bottom side of the annular body having said horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13].
Regarding claims 3-5:
Flanigan teaches one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (116) has a top surface (top surface of 116) and a threaded side surface (threaded bore) fabricated from a conductive material of the annular body (body of 102), wherein the threaded side surface (threaded bore) extends vertically from the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded holes (top surface of 116) to the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 102) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10]; wherein the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 116) is horizontally oriented (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10]; and wherein the threaded side surface (threaded bore) has a plurality of spiral threads (threaded) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10].
The claim limitations “wherein the threaded side surface is configured to be in contact with a plurality of threads of the one of the plurality of fasteners to securely fasten the annular body to the support ring” and “the plurality of fasteners form a gap from the top surface of the plurality of threaded fastener holes, wherein the gap extends from and including 0 millimeters (mm) to a value less than 1 mm to reduce chances of arcing within the gap” 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 6-7:
Flanigan teaches the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 116) is substantially perpendicular (see fig 2) to the threaded side surface (threaded bore) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10]; and wherein the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 116) forms an angle ranging between 85 degrees and 95 degrees with respect to the threaded side surface (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10].
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Although drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). The top surface of 116 is depicted to be substantially perpendicular to the side surface of 116.
Additionally/alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 8-9:
Flanigan teaches each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (116) lacks an insert (116 is formed in the ring) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10]; and each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (116) is drilled into the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 102) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10].
Regarding claim 14:
The claim limitations “wherein the first and second portions are configured to interface with a plurality of portions of a thermally conductive gel layer to electrically and thermally couple the annular body to the support 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 15:
Flanigan teaches a first distance between a first set of adjacent ones of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (116) is within a predetermined limit from a second distance between a second set of adjacent ones of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (any distance between adjacent 116 meets the limitation - moreover, the pin mounting location is not critical to the invention) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10].
Regarding claims 16-17:
The claim limitations “wherein the plurality of threaded fastener holes provide an adhesion force that lasts beyond an adhesion force provided by a gel layer interfacing with the first and second portions of the bottom side” and “wherein the annular body forms a capacitor plate with respect to an electrode embedded within the support 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 18-19:
Flanigan teaches the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 102) and a part of the second portion (part of middle portion of bottom of 102) form another horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13]; and wherein the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 102) and a part of the second portion (part of middle portion of bottom of 102) form the horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13].
Regarding claim 42:
Although Flanigan discloses a plurality of threaded fastener holes (threaded bore, 116 – it is disclosed that the invention can include one or more anti-rotation pins coupled to a similar number of brackets) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10], Flanigan does not explicitly disclose the plurality of threaded fastener holes are located at the vertices of the triangle.
Kenworthy teaches a plurality of holes (303) are located at the vertices of the triangle (see fig 3A) [fig 3A-3B & 0035].
Similarly, Mun teaches a plurality of holes (421) are located at the vertices of the triangle (any three holes of 421) [fig 2-3 & page 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of threaded fastener holes of Flanigan to be located at the vertices of the triangle, as in Kenworthy/Mun, because Flanigan teaches one or more anti-rotation may be used and Kenworthy/Mun teach the claimed number/orientation of holes is effective [Kenworthy – 0035 and Mun – page 4]. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 43:
Flanigan does not specifically disclose the annular body is fabricated from silicon or silicon carbide or silicon carbide and alumina.
Kenworthy teaches the annular body is fabricated from silicon or silicon carbide or silicon carbide and alumina (edge ring 201 may be formed from a variety of materials such as aluminum oxide, silicon, and silicon carbide) [0029].
Similarly, Mun teaches the annular body is fabricated from silicon or silicon carbide or silicon carbide and alumina (412 may include silicon) [page 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the annular body of Flanigan to be fabricated from the materials of Kenworthy/Mun because such are suitable materials for an edge ring [Kenworthy – 0029 and Mun – page 4]. 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].
Regarding claim 45:
Although Flanigan discloses a plurality of threaded fastener holes (threaded bore, 116 – it is disclosed that the invention can include one or more anti-rotation pins coupled to a similar number of brackets) [fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10], Flanigan does not explicitly disclose the vertices of the plurality of threaded fastener holes form the triangle at the bottom side.
Kenworthy teaches vertices of a plurality of holes (303) form the triangle at the bottom side (see fig 3A) [fig 3A-3B & 0035].
Similarly, Mun teaches vertices of a plurality of holes (421) form the triangle at the bottom side (any three holes of 421) [fig 2-3 & page 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of threaded fastener holes of Flanigan such that the vertices of the plurality of threaded fastener holes form the triangle at the bottom side, as in Kenworthy/Mun, because Flanigan teaches one or more anti-rotation may be used and Kenworthy/Mun teach the claimed number/orientation of holes is effective [Kenworthy – 0035 and Mun – page 4]. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
14. Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 5,863,340) in view of [Kenworthy et al (US 2010/0044974) OR Mun (KR 2008/0060726A)] as applied to claims 1-9, 14-19, 42-43, and 45 above, and further in view of Ota (JP 2004-296553).
The limitations of claims 1-9, 14-19, 42-43, and 45 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 10-12:
Modified Flanigan teaches a first edge (corner between top of 102 and outer side of 102) is located between the top side (top of 102) and the outer side (outer side of 102) and a second edge (corner between inner side of 102 and bottom of 102) is located between the inner side (inner side of 102) and the bottom side (bottom side of 102) [Flanigan - fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13]; and wherein a third edge (corner between outer side of 102 and bottom side of 102) is located between the outer side (outer side of 102) and the bottom side (bottom side of 102) [Flanigan - fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13]
Modified Flanigan does not specifically disclose the first edge has a first radius and the second edge has a second radius, wherein the second radius is less than the first radius; and wherein the first radius ranges from 0.03 inch to 0.1 inch.
Ota teaches a first edge (105) has a first radius and a second edge (103) has a second radius (R-chamfering of all the corner portions with a radius of 0.1 mm to 1 mm), wherein the second radius (R-chamfer of 103 may be 0.9 mm) is less than the first radius (R-chamfer of 105 may be 1 mm) [fig 2a & page 4]; and wherein the first radius ranges from 0.03 inch to 0.1 inch (R-chamfer of 105 may be 1 mm) [fig 2a & page 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first edge and second edge of modified Flanigan to have radiuses within the range disclosed by Ota to alleviate charge concentration at the corners to suppress arcing [Ota – page 4].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “to reduce chances of plasma ions entering in a gap between the second edge and the chuck”, “to reduce chances of arcing”, and “wherein the third edge dissipates radio frequency (RF) power” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Flanigan teaches the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 102) and a first part of the second portion (first part of middle portion of bottom of 102) extend horizontally from the second edge (corner between inner side of 102 and bottom of 102) to the plurality of threaded fastener holes (116), and a second part of the second portion (second part of middle portion of bottom of 102) and the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 102) extend horizontally from the plurality of threaded fastener holes (116) towards the outer side (outer side of 102) [Flanigan - fig 2 & col 2-3, lines 66-13 and col 4, lines 6-10].
15. Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 5,863,340) in view of [Kenworthy et al (US 2010/0044974) OR Mun (KR 2008/0060726A)] as applied to claims 1-9, 14-19, 42-43, and 45 above, and further in view of Masuda (US 2008/0066868).
The limitations of claims 1-9, 14-19, 42-43, and 45 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 44:
Modified Flanigan does not specifically disclose the annular body has a silicon carbide layer and an alumina layer, wherein the silicon carbide layer is on top of alumina layer.
Masuda teaches an annular body has a silicon carbide layer (5a may be SiC) and an alumina layer (5b may be alumina), wherein the silicon carbide layer (5a) is on top of alumina layer (5b) [fig 3A-3B & 0039-0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the annular body of modified Flanigan to have a silicon carbide layer on top of an alumina layer, as in Masuda, to improve in-surface uniformity of processing [Masuda – 0041].
16. Claim(s) 20-23, 25-29, 35-36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US 2019/0013184) in view of Liang et al (CN 104752143A), Maeda et al (US 2010/0326957), and Liu et al (US 2005/0133165) with substantiating evidence provided by Raj et al (US 2016/0181142).
Regarding claim 20:
Cui teaches a plasma chamber (process chamber, 100) [fig 1 & 0032] comprising: a support ring (250) [fig 2B & 0042]; a base ring (220) [fig 2B & 0040]; a ground ring (ground plate, 200) [fig 2B & 0040]; a chuck (240) [fig 2B & 0041]; and an edge ring (edge ring, 106) surrounding the chuck (240), the edge ring (106) having an annular body (body of 106) that is secured over the support ring (positioned over 250) and disposed at least partially over the chuck (240) [fig 2B & 0045], the annular body (body of 106) having: a bottom side (bottom of 106), a top side (top of 106), an inner side (inner side of 106), and an outer side (outer side of 106) [fig 2B & 0045]; and wherein the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 106) includes a first portion (inner portion of bottom of 106), a second portion (middle portion of bottom of 106), and a third portion (outer portion of bottom of 106) having a horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2B – it is contemplated that 255 may be omitted), wherein the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 106) is thermally conductively coupled to the chuck (240), the second portion (middle portion of bottom of 106) is thermally conductively coupled to the support ring (250) [fig 2B & 0045, 0051].
Cui does not specifically disclose a base ring surrounding the support ring; and a ground ring surrounding a portion of the base ring.
Liang teaches a base ring (38) surrounding the support ring (32) [fig 2a & page 3, last paragraph]; and a ground ring (39) surrounding a portion of the base ring (38) [fig 2a & page 3, last paragraph].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base ring and ground ring of Cui to surround the support ring, as in Liang, to limit diffusion of the RF electric field only in the reaction area [page 3, last paragraph].
Cui modified by Liang does not specifically disclose the edge ring disposed at least partially over the base ring; and the third portion is located above and facing the base ring.
Maeda teaches an edge ring (51) disposed at least partially over the base ring (53) [fig 8 & 0046, 0077]; and the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 51) is located above and facing the base ring (53) [fig 8 & 0046, 0077].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base ring of modified Cui to be disposed at least partially under the base ring, as in Maeda, because such a shape is a functional equivalent effective to prevent a sidewall of adjacent structures from being worn due to ion bombardment [Maeda – 0046]. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
Cui modified by Liang and Maeda does not specifically disclose a plurality of threaded fastener holes fabricated into the annular body along the bottom side to form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side, each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes having a threaded inner surface for receiving a respective one of a plurality of fasteners used for securing the annular body to the support ring.
Liu teaches a plurality of threaded fastener holes (19) fabricated into the annular body (bottom of 32) along the bottom side to form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side (any three of 19), each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (any three of 19) having a threaded inner surface (inner surface of 19) for receiving a respective one of a plurality of fasteners (37) used for securing the annular body (32) to the support ring (34) [fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bottom side of the edge ring of modified Cui to have a plurality of fastener holes having a threaded inner surface, as in Liu, to withstand the high internal crushing and shear stress generated during the heating process without becoming separable [Raj – 0020].
Regarding claim 21:
Modified Cui teaches one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (19) has a top surface (top surface of 19) and a threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) fabricated from a conductive material of the annular body (19 is formed in body of 32), wherein the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) extends vertically from the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded holes (top surface of 19) to the bottom side of the annular body (body of 32), wherein the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) is configured to be in contact with a plurality of threads of the respective one of the plurality of fasteners (37) to securely fasten the annular body (body of 32) to the support ring (34) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Regarding claim 22:
Cui teaches a plasma chamber (process chamber, 100) [fig 1 & 0032] comprising: a support ring (top half of 250) [fig 2B & 0042]; an insulator ring (bottom half of 250) located below the support ring (top half of 250); a base ring (220) [fig 2B & 0040]; a ground ring (ground plate, 200) [fig 2B & 0040]; a chuck (240) [fig 2B & 0041]; and an edge ring (edge ring, 106) surrounding the chuck (240), the edge ring (106) having an annular body (body of 106) that is secured over the support ring (positioned over top half of 250) and disposed at least partially over the chuck (240) [fig 2B & 0045], the annular body (body of 106) having: a bottom side (bottom of 106), a top side (top of 106), an inner side (inner side of 106), and an outer side (outer side of 106) [fig 2B & 0045]; and wherein the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 106) includes a first portion (inner portion of bottom of 106), a second portion (middle portion of bottom of 106), and a third portion (outer portion of bottom of 106) having a horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2B – it is contemplated that 255 may be omitted), wherein the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 106) is thermally conductively coupled to the chuck (240), the second portion (middle portion of bottom of 106) is thermally conductively coupled to the support ring (top half of 250) [fig 2B & 0045, 0051].
Although the support ring (top half of 250) and insulator ring (bottom half of 250) are not specifically disclosed to be separate structures, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to separate 250 into two rings since it has been held that making a formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Cui does not specifically disclose a base ring surrounding the support ring; and a ground ring surrounding a portion of the base ring.
Liang teaches a base ring (38) surrounding the support ring (32) [fig 2a & page 3, last paragraph]; and a ground ring (39) surrounding a portion of the base ring (38) [fig 2a & page 3, last paragraph].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base ring and ground ring of Cui to surround the support ring, as in Liang, to limit diffusion of the RF electric field only in the reaction area [page 3, last paragraph].
Cui modified by Liang does not specifically disclose the edge ring disposed at least partially over the base ring; and the third portion is located above and facing the base ring.
Maeda teaches an edge ring (51) disposed at least partially over the base ring (53) [fig 8 & 0046, 0077]; and the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 51) is located above and facing the base ring (53) [fig 8 & 0046, 0077].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base ring of modified Cui to be disposed at least partially under the base ring, as in Maeda, because such a shape is a functional equivalent effective to prevent a sidewall of adjacent structures from being worn due to ion bombardment [Maeda – 0046]. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
Cui modified by Liang and Maeda does not specifically disclose a plurality of threaded fastener holes fabricated into the annular body along the bottom side to form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side, each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes having a threaded inner surface for receiving a respective one of a plurality of fasteners used for securing the annular body to the support ring.
Liu teaches a plurality of threaded fastener holes (19) fabricated into the annular body (bottom of 32) along the bottom side to form vertices of a triangle within a horizontal plane of the bottom side (any three of 19), each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (any three of 19) having a threaded inner surface (inner surface of 19) for receiving a respective one of a plurality of fasteners (37) used for securing the annular body (32) to the support ring (34) [fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bottom side of the edge ring of modified Cui to have a plurality of fastener holes having a threaded inner surface, as in Liu, to withstand the high internal crushing and shear stress generated during the heating process without becoming separable [Raj – 0020].
Regarding claim 23:
Modified Cui teaches one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (19) has a top surface (top surface of 19) and a threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) fabricated from a conductive material of the annular body (19 is formed in body of 32), wherein the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) extends vertically from the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 19) to the bottom side of the annular body (body of 32), wherein the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) is configured to be in contact with a plurality of threads of the respective one of the plurality of fasteners (37) to securely fasten the annular body (body of 32) to the support ring (34) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Regarding claim 25:
Cui teaches the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 106), the second portion (middle portion of bottom of 106) and the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 106) are contiguous with each other (see fig 2B – it is contemplated that 255 may be omitted) and together define the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 106) having said horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2B – it is contemplated that 255 may be omitted) [fig 2B & 0045, 0051].
Regarding claim 26:
Modified Cui teaches the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) has a plurality of spiral threads (engages machine screw 37) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Regarding claims 27-28:
Modified Cui teaches the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 19) is horizontally oriented and is substantially perpendicular (see fig 7) to the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028]; and wherein the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 19) forms an angle ranging between 85 degrees and 95 degrees with respect to the threaded side surface (see fig 7) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Although drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). The top surface of 116 is depicted to be substantially perpendicular to the side surface of 116.
Additionally/alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 29:
Modified Cui teaches each of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (19) lacks an insert (19 is formed in the ring) and is drilled into the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 32) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Regarding claim 35:
Modified Cui teaches a first distance between a first set of adjacent ones of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (19) is within a predetermined limit from a second distance between a second set of adjacent ones of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (any distance between adjacent 19 meets the limitation) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Regarding claim 36:
Cui teaches the support ring (250) has embedded therein an electrode (111), wherein the annular body (body of 106) forms a capacitor plate with respect to the electrode embedded within the support ring (106 and 111 are conductors) [fig 2B & 0043-0045].
Regarding claim 38:
Cui teaches the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 106), the second portion (middle portion of bottom of 106) and the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 106) are contiguous with each other (see fig 2B – it is contemplated that 255 may be omitted) and together define the bottom side of the annular body (bottom of 106) having said horizontally oriented surface (see fig 2B – it is contemplated that 255 may be omitted) [fig 2B & 0045, 0051].
17. Claim(s) 24, 33-34, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US 2019/0013184) in view of Liang et al (CN 104752143A), Maeda et al (US 2010/0326957), and Liu et al (US 2005/0133165) as applied to claims 20-23, 25-29, 35-36, and 38 above, and further in view of Miyagawa et al (US 2008/0006207).
The limitations of claims 20-23, 25-29, 35-36, and 38 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 24:
Modified Cui teaches a first thermally conductive layer (upper part of silicone-based thermal gasket) and a second thermally conductive layer (lower part of silicone-based thermal gasket), the plurality of fasteners (37 of Liu), wherein the plurality of fasteners extend between a first portion of the second thermally conductive layer and a second portion of the second thermally conductive layer (37 of Liu extends through the interface below the ring, and as such, extends through portions of lower part of silicone-based thermal gasket which occupies this space in the modified structure) [Cui – fig 2B & 0051 and Liu – fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Although modified Cui does not specifically disclose the silicone-based thermal gasket comprises a first thermally conductive layer and a second thermally conductive layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to separate the silicone-based thermal gasket into a first thermally conductive layer and a second thermally conductive layer, since it has been held that making a formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Modified Cui does not specifically teach the first thermally conductive layer and the second thermally conductive layer are gel layers.
Miyagawa teaches a gel layer (39 made of a gel-like material) [fig 1 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first thermally conductive layer and the second thermally conductive layer of modified Cui to be gel layers, as in Miyagawa, to fully fill the minute gaps thereby improving heat transference [Miyagawa – 0045].
Regarding claims 33-34:
Modified Cui teaches a second portion (middle portion of bottom of 106) interfaces with a thermally conductive layer (silicone-based thermal gasket) to thermally couple the annular body (body of 106) to the support ring (250) [Cui – fig 2B & 0045, 0051].
Modified Cui does not specifically teach the thermally conductive layer is a thermally conductive gel layer.
Miyagawa teaches a thermally conductive gel layer (39 made of a gel-like material) [fig 1 & 0045].
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 to be a thermally conductive gel layer, as in Miyagawa, to fully fill the minute gaps thereby improving heat transference [Miyagawa – 0045].
The claim limitations “wherein the plurality of threaded fastener holes provide an adhesion force that lasts beyond an adhesion force provided by the thermally conductive gel layer” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 37:
Modified Cui teaches a first thermally conductive layer (upper part of silicone-based thermal gasket) and a second thermally conductive layer (lower part of silicone-based thermal gasket), the plurality of fasteners (37 of Liu), wherein the plurality of fasteners extend between a first portion of the second thermally conductive layer and a second portion of the second thermally conductive layer (37 of Liu extends through the interface below the ring, and as such, extends through portions of lower part of silicone-based thermal gasket which occupies this space in the modified structure) [Cui – fig 2B & 0051 and Liu – fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Although modified Cui does not specifically disclose the silicone-based thermal gasket comprises a first thermally conductive layer and a second thermally conductive layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to separate the silicone-based thermal gasket into a first thermally conductive layer and a second thermally conductive layer, since it has been held that making a formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Modified Cui does not specifically teach the first thermally conductive layer and the second thermally conductive layer are gel layers.
Miyagawa teaches a gel layer (39 made of a gel-like material) [fig 1 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first thermally conductive layer and the second thermally conductive layer of modified Cui to be gel layers, as in Miyagawa, to fully fill the minute gaps thereby improving heat transference [Miyagawa – 0045].
18. Claim(s) 30-32 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US 2019/0013184) in view of Liang et al (CN 104752143A), Maeda et al (US 2010/0326957), and Liu et al (US 2005/0133165) as applied to claims 20-23, 25-29, 35-36, and 38 above, and further in view of Ota (JP 2004-296553).
The limitations of claims 20-23, 25-29, 35-36, and 38 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 30-31:
Modified Cui teaches a first edge (corner between top of 106 and outer side of 106) is located between the top side (top of 106) and the outer side (outer side of 106) and a second edge (corner between inner side of 106 and bottom of 106) is located between the inner side (inner side of 106) and the bottom side (bottom side of 106) [Cui - fig 2B & 0045].
Modified Cui does not specifically disclose the first edge has a first radius and the second edge has a second radius, wherein the second radius is less than the first radius; and wherein the first radius ranges from 0.03 inch to 0.1 inch.
Ota teaches a first edge (105) has a first radius and a second edge (103) has a second radius (R-chamfering of all the corner portions with a radius of 0.1 mm to 1 mm), wherein the second radius (R-chamfer of 103 may be 0.9 mm) is less than the first radius (R-chamfer of 105 may be 1 mm) [fig 2a & page 4]; and wherein the first radius ranges from 0.03 inch to 0.1 inch (R-chamfer of 105 may be 1 mm) [fig 2a & page 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first edge and second edge of modified Cui to have radiuses within the range disclosed by Ota to alleviate charge concentration at the corners to suppress arcing [Ota – page 4].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “to reduce chances of plasma ions entering in a gap between the second edge and the chuck” and “to reduce chances of arcing” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 32:
Modified Cui teaches the first portion (inner portion of bottom of 106) and a first part of the second portion (first part of middle portion of bottom of 106) extend horizontally (optional gap 255 may be omitted) from the second edge (corner between inner side of 106 and bottom of 106) to the plurality of threaded fastener holes (19 of Liu), and a second part of the second portion (second part of middle portion of bottom of 106) and the third portion (outer portion of bottom of 106) extend horizontally (optional gap 255 may be omitted) from the plurality of threaded fastener holes (19 of Liu) towards the outer side (outer side of 106) [Cui – fig 2B & 0045, 0051 and Liu – fig 7 & 0025, 0028].
Regarding claim 39:
Modified Cui teaches the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) has a plurality of spiral threads (threads engaging with machine screw 37), and the plurality of fasteners (37) form a gap from the top surface of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (interface between 19 and 37) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Modified Cui does not specifically disclose the gap extends from and including 0 millimeters (mm) to a value less than 1 mm to reduce chances of arcing within the gap.
Ota teaches a gap between adjacent structures extends from and including 0 millimeters (mm) to a value less than 1 mm to reduce chances of arcing within the gap (gap between adjacent members is in the range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm the effect of suppressing arcing can be more reliably exhibited) [page 3].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gap between the fasteners and the top surface of the plurality of threaded fastener holes of modified Cui to fall within the range of Ota to suppress arcing [Ota – page 3].
Regarding claims 40-41:
Modified Cui teaches the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 19) is horizontally oriented and is substantially perpendicular (see fig 7) to the threaded side surface (threaded side surface of 19) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028]; and wherein the top surface of the one of the plurality of threaded fastener holes (top surface of 19) forms an angle ranging between 85 degrees and 95 degrees with respect to the threaded side surface (see fig 7) [Liu - fig 2, 7 & 0025, 0028].
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Although drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). The top surface of 116 is depicted to be substantially perpendicular to the side surface of 116.
Additionally/alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification dated 03/09/2026.
20. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-9 and 14-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 7 and 10-13 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.
The teachings of Kenworthy et al (US 2010/0044974) OR Mun (KR 2008/0060726A) remedy anything lacking in Flanigan (US 5,863,340) as applied above to the amended claims.
21. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 20-23 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.
The teachings of Liu et al (US 2005/0133165) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagayama et al (2015/0114567) teaches a first and second gel layer [fig 3A].
23. 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.
24. 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