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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushkin et al. (US 2023/0075462) in view of Tsuji (US D983941).
Regarding claim 1, Matyushkin et al. discloses a barrier seal ring 442 Fig. 4 capable of being used in a plasma chamber, wherein the barrier seal ring is configured to sit in a groove 440 of a first ring 430 and provide a seal when pressed against a second ring 410, said first and said second rings are disposed below an edge ring 150 surrounding a substrate support surface defined in a lower portion of the plasma chamber, the second ring being part of a tunable edge sheath (TES) assembly and is designed to receive at least a first portion of an electrode 412 within. However, Matyushkin et al. fails to explicitly disclose the shape of the barrier seal ring having an outer seal leg and an inner seal leg. Tsuji shows this type of seal shape to be well known in the art. Tsuji discloses a barrier seal comprising: an outer seal leg (10 of Annotated Fig. 9, below) extending vertically down at an outer diameter for a first height (H1 of Annotated Fig. 9, below), the outer seal leg having an upper chamfer (12 of Annotated Fig. 9, below) and a lower chamfer (14 of Annotated Fig. 9, below) on an outside surface; an inner seal leg (16 of Annotated Fig. 9, below) connected to a top portion of the outer seal leg and extends to an inner diameter for a second height (H2 of Annotated Fig. 9, below), the inner seal leg oriented at an angle relative to the outer seal leg and the inner seal leg comprises an upper leg portion (16a of Annotated Fig. 9, below) extending for a third height (H3 of Annotated Fig. 9, below) and a lower leg portion (16b of Annotated Fig. 9, below) extending for a fourth height (H4 of Annotated Fig. 9, below), the third height and the fourth height define the second height of the inner seal leg, wherein the lower leg portion of the inner seal leg forms an initial gap Fig. 9 of a first distance with the outer seal leg, the initial gap is sized to be capable of receiving the lower leg portion, when folded, and the fourth height of the lower leg portion is defined to be capable of allowing the lower leg portion to fold into the initial gap, an extent to which the lower leg portion can be folded and the third and the fourth heights are defined to be capable of ensuring a height of the inner seal leg does not exceed the outer height of the outer seal leg; the lower leg portion is capable of flexing towards the outer seal leg to create a second gap that is less than the first distance of the initial gap but greater than zero. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Matyushkin et al. between ring members as taught by Tsuji with reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
838
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses wherein the inner seal leg 16 is oriented at an acute angle relative to the outer seal leg 10, wherein the first ring 430 is a base ring disposed below a first portion of the edge ring 150 surrounding a substrate support surface disposed in a lower portion of the plasma chamber, and the second ring 410 is a coupling ring that is part of a tunable edge sheath (TES) assembly disposed adjacent to and surrounded by said base ring. Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein an interface in the inner seal leg 16 connects the upper leg portion 16a to the lower leg portion 16b, and wherein said inner seal leg is capable of flexing inward along said interface and said flexing is capable of varying in degree for each of said upper leg portion and said lower leg portion.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses wherein said upper leg portion 16a is capable of flexing by a first folding angle and said lower leg portion 16b is capable of flexing by a second folding angle, and wherein the first folding angle is less than the second folding angle, and wherein the third height H3 of the upper leg portion 16a is different from the fourth height H4 of the lower leg portion 16b. Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses wherein an inside surface of the lower leg portion 16a extends vertically down and is parallel to an inside surface of the outer seal leg 10, and wherein an outer surface of said lower leg portion includes a top portion and a bottom portion, said top portion extends a first leg height and follows a contour of an outside surface of the upper leg portion, and the bottom portion extends a second leg height vertically down to an inner diameter of the barrier seal ring Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the first height H1 of the outer seal leg 10 is greater than the second height H2 of the inner seal leg. Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose a configuration wherein said inner seal leg 16 has an inner chamfer defined in an inside surface. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the configuration of the seal to accommodate sealing within a desired space and since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses wherein profile of said upper chamfer 12 and said lower chamfer 14 match a profile at corresponding inner radii of a top corner and a bottom corner of an inside sidewall of said groove 440 of said first ring 430. Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses wherein a top width of said barrier seal ring is less than a bottom width of said barrier seal ring (Fig. 9 of Tsuji).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses wherein the groove 440 is defined on an inside sidewall of the first ring 430 disposed in a lower portion of the plasma chamber, the groove extends inward from a first inner diameter to a second inner diameter, wherein the second inner diameter of the groove of said first ring is equal to the outer diameter of said barrier seal ring and said upper and lower chamfers 12, 14 of the outer seal leg 10 of the barrier seal ring are capable of allowing full mating of the outer seal leg at the outer diameter with the inside sidewall of the groove defined in the first ring. Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses wherein a height of the groove 440 defined in the first ring 430 is equal to the first height H1 of the outer seal leg 10 at the outer diameter.
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses wherein the barrier seal ring Fig. 9 is capable of being annealed to prevent shrinkage of the barrier seal ring, when in use. Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the barrier seal ring is made of polytetrafluoroethylene or perfluoroelastomer material. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In view of a review of the prior art by the Examiner; the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claims 12-13 and 16-17 including where a ceramic support element disposed below a second ring and surround the electrostatic chuck, the ceramic support element including a sleeve received in a vertical shaft extending a height of the ceramic support element, the sleeve being an insulating component configured to encapsulate a conductive rod, and a radio frequency (RF) power source with a matching network. There is no motivation to modify the prior art references, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675