DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious search burden has been established on examining all of the claims in a single application. This is not found persuasive. It is noted that search burden is not a requirement for PCT restrictions. In addition, there is a clear distinction between Group I and Group II. Specifically, Group I has the feature of adjusting a voltage applied to the conductive ring, while Group II has the feature of adjusting a height of the one or more moveable segments of the conductive ring.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is double bracket in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
5. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 4, 7: a mechanical assembly
In claim 5: a separate mechanical assembly
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a mechanical assembly and a separate mechanical assembly is taken to include any mechanical structure that can provide movement to the conductive ring (as taught by [0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-15 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.
9. Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites moving one or more movable segments of a conductive ring inward in a radial direction. However, if there’s only one segment, the single segment is the ring itself, which is contradiction to the description where the ring having multiple segments to move radially inward. Having two or more segments is essential to the effect of moving the ring radially without breaking.
Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected as indefinite.
10. Regarding claim 4, 5:
The claims recite physical features of the conductive ring. It is unclear whether the scope of the claims is directed toward the conductive ring itself or a computer-readable medium encoded with instructions for its operation.
11. Regarding claim 7, 12-13:
Claim 7 recites “the position of a top surface”. The position lacks antecedent basis since a position is never recited.
Claims 12-13 recite “the position of the one or more movable segments”. The position lacks antecedent basis.
11. Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the conductive ring comprising one or more movable segments configured to move radially inward. However, if there’s only one segment, the single segment is the ring itself, which is contradiction to the description where the ring having multiple segments to move radially inward. Having two or more segments is essential to the effect of moving the ring radially without breaking.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-7, 9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20210142978) in view of McChesney (US 20160211165).
15. Regarding claim 1:
Ando teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions that are executable by at least one processor of a device ([0078] teaches a program for causing a processor to execute processing. [0066] teaches a computer) to cause the device to perform a method comprising:
placing a wafer at a location on a stage ([0027] teaches that the substrate 101 is placed on an electrostatic chuck mechanism 234 on the stage 105);
adjusting a voltage applied to the conductive ring or to a voltage applied to the wafer ([0076] teaches applying to each electrode 230 an individual potential) so that to enable the voltage applied to the conductive ring to be substantially equal to the voltage applied to the wafer to provide a substantially consistent electric field across an inner portion of the conductive ring and an outer portion of the wafer ([0076] teaches that disturbance of the electric field at a peripheral portion of the inspection substrate can be reduced by applying to each electrode 230 an individual potential. [0043] teaches adding a different offset potential to a retarding field applied to the substrate to achieve similarity with the wafer’s field).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ando fails to teach moving one or more movable segments of a conductive ring inward in a radial direction to enable the conductive ring to be within a predetermined distance from an edge of the wafer.
McChesney teaches actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring and correcting horizontal offsets by moving the ring side-to-side ([0041]-[0042]). Moving a ring horizontally suggests that that one of more portions of the ring is moved radially inward or outward.
PNG
media_image2.png
944
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to one or more portions of the ring and include moving one or more portions of the coupling ring in horizontal direction as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the horizontal offset may be corrected and that horizontal movement may be performed to center the edge coupling effect relative to the substrate (McChesney [0042]).
16. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Ando fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: moving the one or more movable segments of the conductive ring radially outward to increase an area of a location on the stage to place the wafer.
McChesney teaches actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring and correcting horizontal offsets by moving the ring side-to-side ([0041]-[0042]). Moving a ring horizontally suggests that that one of more portions of the ring is moved radially inward or outward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to include moving one or more portions of the coupling ring in radially outward and horizontal direction as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the horizontal offset may be corrected and that horizontal movement may be performed to center the edge coupling effect relative to the substrate (McChesney [0042]).
17. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Ando fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: moving the one or more movable segments inward in a radial direction which further comprises: moving the one or more movable segments in a second radial direction to enable the wafer to be within a predetermined distance of a one or more fixed segments included in the conductive ring.
McChesney teaches actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring and correcting horizontal offsets by moving the ring side-to-side ([0041]-[0042]). Moving a ring horizontally can cause portions of the ring to shift in different radial directions. As one side of the ring moves radially inward to push or grip the wafer, the opposite portion of the ring compensates by moving radially outward. When the other portions of the ring are not moved, they are fixed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to one or more portions of the ring and include moving one or more portions of the coupling ring in horizontal direction as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the horizontal offset may be corrected and that horizontal movement may be performed to center the edge coupling effect relative to the substrate (McChesney [0042]).
18. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Ando does not specifically teach that wherein the conductive ring is supported by a mechanical assembly.
However, McChesney teaches that wherein the conductive ring is supported by a mechanical assembly (the mechanical assembly is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to correspond to any mechanical structure that can provide movement. [0042], [0044] teach an actuator that support and provide movement to the ring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to support and move the ring as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to adjust and correct the position of the ring (McChesney [0042]).
19. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Ando does not specifically teach that wherein each segment of the one or more movable segments of the conductive ring is supported by a separate mechanical assembly.
McChesney teaches that an actuator may be arranged in various locations to one or more portions of the edge coupling ring relative to the substrate, and multiple actuators can be used ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate individual actuator to couple with various portions of the ring, as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for moving one or more portions of the ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the ring (McChesney [0041]).
20. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 3. Ando further teaches that wherein the conductive ring comprises one or more fixed segments that are fixed in a radial direction (as shown in fig. 7 when one or more portions of the conductive ring is not moved, they are fixed)
Ando fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: moving the one or more movable segments in a radial direction to enable the wafer to be within the predetermined distance of the one or more fixed segments.
McChesney teaches actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring and correcting horizontal offsets by moving the ring side-to-side ([0041]-[0042]). Moving a ring horizontally can cause portions of the ring to shift in different radial directions. When the other portions of the ring are not moved, they are fixed and are within a predetermined distance of the moving portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to one or more portions of the ring and include moving one or more portions of the coupling ring in horizontal direction as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the horizontal offset may be corrected and that horizontal movement may be performed to center the edge coupling effect relative to the substrate (McChesney [0042]).
21. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 4. Ando fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: configuring the mechanical assembly to move the one or more movable segments of the conductive ring upward or downward or such that the position of a top surface of each of the one or more movable segments and a top surface of the wafer are substantially co-planar.
McChesney teaches actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring in vertical direction ([0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to one or more portions of the ring and include moving one or more portions of the coupling ring in vertical direction, as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to adjust the relative height between the ring and the substrate to ensure etch uniformity (McChesney [0041]-[0042]).
22. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 6. Ando further teaches that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor ([0078] teaches a program for causing a processor to execute processing) to cause the device to further perform: increasing or decreasing the voltage applied to the conductive ring to be substantially similar to the voltage applied to the wafer ([0076] teaches applying to each electrode 230 an individual potential. Disturbance of the electric field at a peripheral portion of the inspection substrate can be reduced by applying to each electrode 230 an individual potential. [0043] teaches adding a different offset potential to a retarding field applied to the substrate to achieve similarity with the wafer’s field).
23. Regarding claim 12:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5. Ando fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: adjusting the position of the one or more movable segments of the conductive ring by moving the conductive ring in an upward direction.
McChesney teaches actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring in vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to one or more portions of the ring and include moving one or more portions of the coupling ring in upward direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to adjust the relative height between the ring and the substrate to ensure etch uniformity (McChesney [0041]-[0042]).
24. Regarding claim 13:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5. Ando fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: adjusting the position of the one or more movable segments of the conductive ring by moving the one or more movable segments of the conductive ring in a downward direction.
McChesney teaches that actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring in downward direction ([0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to one or more portions of the ring and include moving one or more portions of the coupling ring in downward direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to adjust the relative height between the ring and the substrate and to correct or create side-to-side asymmetry (McChesney [0041]-[0042]).
25. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Ando further teaches that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: acquiring wafer position information by a first position sensor ([0033] teaches that the movement position of the stage 105 is measured by the laser length measuring system).
26. Regarding claim 15:
Ando teaches a system of inspecting a wafer (fig. 1), comprising:
a stage configured to support a wafer having a wafer edge ([0027] teaches that the substrate 101 is placed on an electrostatic chuck mechanism 234 on the stage 105);
a conductive ring of the stage ([0076] fig. 7 teaches electrode 230), the conductive ring comprising one or more movable segments (fig. 7 shows that the ring comprises multiple segments); and a controller including circuitry ([0078] teaches a program for causing a processor to execute processing) configured to
adjust a voltage applied to the conductive ring or to a voltage applied to the wafer to enable the voltage applied to the conductive ring ([0076] teaches applying to each electrode 230 an individual potential) to be substantially similar to the voltage applied to the wafer to provide a substantially consistent electric field across an inner portion of the conductive ring and an outer portion of the wafer ([0076] teaches that disturbance of the electric field at a peripheral portion of the inspection substrate can be reduced by applying to each electrode 230 an individual potential. [0043] teaches adding a different offset potential to a retarding field applied to the substrate to achieve similarity with the wafer’s field).
Ando does not specifically teach that the conductive ring is configured to move radially inward to enable the conductive ring to be moved to be within a predetermined distance from the wafer edge.
McChesney teaches actuator moving one or more portions of the edge coupling ring to alter the position of the one or more portions of the edge coupling ring and correcting horizontal offsets by moving the ring side-to-side ([0041]-[0042]). Moving a ring horizontally suggests that that one of more portions of the ring is moved radially inward or outward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to incorporate the actuator to one or more portions of the ring and so that one or more portions of the coupling ring is configured to be moved in horizontal direction as taught by McChesney. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the horizontal offset may be corrected and that horizontal movement may be performed to center the edge coupling effect relative to the substrate (McChesney [0042]).
27. Claims 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ando in view of McChesney, further in view of Cui (US 20200161098).
28. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 1. Ando in view of McChesney fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: acquiring wafer voltage information to generate a first sensed voltage, acquiring conductive ring voltage information to generate a second sense voltage, comparing the first sensed voltage and the second sensed voltage, and adjusting the voltage applied to the conductive ring or the voltage applied to the wafer based on the comparison.
Cui teaches an edge ring voltage control system where the controller 108 measures voltage at the edge ring electrode 111 and the substrate electrode 109 ([0062]). Cui teaches using the measurement to determine an amplitude ratio and actively tunes the edge ring voltage control circuit 155, the substrate voltage control circuit 158 to achieve the target edge ring voltage ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of McChesney to integrate Cui’s active voltage measurement and comparison feedback loop. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for manipulating voltage applied to the ring and substrate based on the measured results (Cui [0048]) to further improve the process uniformity on the substrate (Cui [0006]).
29. Regarding claim 10:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7. Ando in view of McChesney fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: increasing or decreasing the voltage applied to the wafer to be substantially similar to the voltage applied to the conductive ring.
Cui teaches using the measurement to determine an amplitude ratio and actively tunes the edge ring voltage control circuit 155, the substrate voltage control circuit 158 to achieve the target edge ring voltage and the substrate voltage with specified difference in amplitude ratio through feedback control loop ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of McChesney to integrate Cui’s active voltage comparison feedback loop and then adjust voltage applied to the substrate accordingly. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for manipulating voltage applied to the ring and substrate based on the measured results (Cui [0048]) to further improve the process uniformity on the substrate (Cui [0006]).
30. Regarding claim 11:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, Ando in view of McChesney fails to teach that wherein the set of instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the device to further perform: acquiring the wafer voltage information by a first voltage sensor and acquiring the conductive ring voltage information by a second voltage sensor.
Cui teaches an edge ring voltage control system where the controller 108 measures voltage at the edge ring electrode 111 and the substrate electrode 109 ([0062]). Because the edge ring electrode and the substrate electrode are two distinct components, measuring the voltage at both locations requires two sensing measurement circuits, which corresponds to the first and second voltage sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of McChesney to integrate Cui’s active voltage measurement of both the wafer information and ring information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for manipulating voltages applied to the ring and substrate based on the measured results (Cui [0048]) to further improve the process uniformity on the substrate (Cui [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights