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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 03/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. As indicated in the signed copy of the information disclosure statement filed 03/14/2025 included herewith, there are numerous foreign patent documents and non-patent literature documents that were indicated with a double asterisk (**) as being previously provided. A review of all of the IDS documents filed in the parent cases did not identify these references. If applicant believes examiner has erred, applicant is kindly requested to explain in which parent application and on which filing date the listed documents were provided.
The information disclosure statement filed 03/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. As indicated in the signed copy of the information disclosure statement filed 03/14/2025 included herewith, KR 20190017721 was not provided because the reference is not in the English language and no translation or statement of the relevance was provided. It is respectfully noted that the English language abstract provided with the document is not the correct English language abstract for KR 20190017721.
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, the use of “uppermost surface of the pedestal” is interpreted as inclusive of the overall uppermost surfaces of the pedestal at different radial (distance from center) locations. The term “uppermost” is not interpreted as being only the surface at the highest position among all of the radial (distance from center) positions of the pedestal. This interpretation is consistent with the instant specification Fig 21-22 in which the pedestal has an inner uppermost surface of the top surface of plate 1022 and an outer uppermost surface of the top surface of plate 1024 for the portion of plate 1024 which extends beyond the outer boundary of plate 1022. Such an interpretation is supported by Fig 21-22 and the corresponding disclosure in which the edge ring (1310), which is selectively moved by an actuator (1214), when in the raised position (Fig 22) has a bottom surface of the edge coupling ring “above an uppermost surface of the pedestal to define a clearance gap between the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and the uppermost surface of the pedestal, wherein the clearance gap is directly below the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and above an upper surface of the at least one plate” and in the lowered position (Fig 21) “the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is supported by the upper surface of the at least one plate”. If applicant intends a different interpretation, applicant is kindly requested to clarify the claim language while indicating how another interpretation is supported by the instant specification because the claim currently uses both the “uppermost surface of the pedestal’ and “an upper surface of the at least one plate” to define a boundary of the “clearance gap”.
The limitation “the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is supported by the upper surface of the at least one plate” is interpreted consistent with the interpretation applied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the decision for parent application 14/705430 issued on 10/22/2019 (see final paragraph of p12 to first paragraph of p13) in which the limitation is interpreted as requiring that “one surface directly supports the other” such that the upper surface of the at least one plate directly supports the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring. If applicant intends a different, broader interpretation, applicant is kindly requested to use different language to convey the broader interpretation applicant intends.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0287631 of Yamamoto, hereinafter Yamamoto, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2004/0149389 of Fink, hereinafter Fink.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a substrate processing system (Fig 1), comprising: a processing chamber (1 Fig 1 [0035]); a pedestal (stage 2 in Fig 1 [0035]) arranged in the processing chamber (Fig 1 [0035]), the pedestal including a baseplate (2a Fig 1 and [0035]) and at least one plate (shown not numbered in Fig 1 or plate 6b Fig 2(a),(b) [0037]) arranged on the baseplate (Fig 2 or 3(a)-(b), note it is on baseplate 2a); an edge coupling ring (5 Fig 2 [0035]) arranged adjacent to a radially outer edge of the pedestal (Fig 1, 2, or 3(a)-(b) [0035]), wherein an inner portion of the edge coupling ring overlaps the at least one plate (Fig 1, 2, or 3(a)-(b), note that the outer portion may also overlap); and a driving mechanism [0059] configured to selectively move the edge coupling ring to a raised position (Fig 3(a) [0059]) and a lowered position (Fig 3(b) [0059]) relative to the pedestal (Fig 3(a)-3(b)), wherein, when the edge coupling ring is in the raised position (Fig 3(a)), a bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is above an uppermost surface of the pedestal (Fig 3(a) it is above an uppermost surface of the portion of the pedestal below the edge coupling ring 5 and is positioned higher than the highest surface of the pedestal) to define a clearance gap between the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and the uppermost surface of the pedestal (see Fig 3(a)), wherein the clearance gap is directly below the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and above an upper surface of the at least one plate (Fig 3(a)), and wherein, when the edge coupling ring is in the lowered position (Fig 3(b)), the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is supported by the upper surface of the at least one plate (Fig 3(b) ring 5 is supported by 6b). Yamamoto teaches a driving mechanism that is not shown [0059] to move the edge ring and therefore Yamamoto fails to teach an actuator as the structure to selectively move the edge coupling ring. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing systems with movable edge coupling rings (abstract and Fig 2A-B), Fink teaches an actuator for moving the lift pins (200) that raise and lower the edge coupling ring (30 Fig 2C) [0032]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to include an actuator as the driving mechanism to move the lift pins to move an edge ring because Yamamoto does not clarify the driving mechanism and Fink teaches a structure capable of performing the driving function for raising and lowering an edge ring (Fink [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. In Yamamoto, the driving mechanism biases the edge coupling ring (ring 5) [0059]. In the combination as applied, the driving mechanism is an actuator as taught by Fink [0032]. Therefore the combination renders obvious the actuator biases the edge coupling ring.
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. In the combination as applied, the actuator supports the edge coupling ring (note that this is consistent with the disclosed embodiment in which support is via an intervening lift pin as shown in Fig 22 and this use of “support” does not require direct contact because there is no reference to support by specific surfaces of each structure).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Yamamoto teaches a pillar arranged between the actuator and the edge coupling ring (310 Fig 3(a) and [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Yamamoto teaches when the edge coupling ring is in the lowered position, the pillar contacts the edge coupling ring (Fig 3(b), see 310 in contact with edge coupling ring 5). Also note that Fink also teaches a pillar (200 Fig 2C) and teaches it may be in contact with the edge coupling ring [0032].
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Yamamoto fails to teach the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring includes a groove for receiving a top surface of the pillar. Fink also teaches a pillar (200 Fig 2C) and teaches it may be in contact with the edge coupling ring [0032]. Fink further teaches the bottom surface of the edge ring include a groove (recess 204 shown but not properly labeled in Fig 2C and taught in [0032]) and teaches this is for receiving the top surface of the pillar (tip 202 Fig 2C and [0032]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to include the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring includes a groove for receiving a top surface of the pillar because Fink teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement and teaches that the groove allows for alignment of the ring during install [0032].
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Yamamoto fails to teach the edge coupling ring includes at least one self-centering feature. Fink also teaches a pillar (200 Fig 2C) and teaches it may be in contact with the edge coupling ring [0032]. Fink further teaches the bottom surface of the edge ring include a groove (recess 204 shown but not properly labeled in Fig 2C and taught in [0032]) and teaches this is for receiving the top surface of the pillar (tip 202 Fig 2C and [0032]) for alignment [0032]. Fink teaches the recess may be round or inclined (conical) [0032] which allows for self-alignment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to include the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring includes a round or inclined groove for receiving a top surface of the pillar because Fink teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement and teaches that the groove allows for alignment of the ring during install [0032]. Note that such a groove is a self-aligning (self-centering) feature.
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. In the combination as applied, Fink teaches the recess may be conical [0032] which is a type of triangular groove because it has a triangular cross section.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Fink as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of JP 2010-267894 of Okita et al., hereinafter Okita (citing machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Fink remains as applied to claim 7 above. The combination as applied to claim 7 fails to teach the at least one self-centering feature is an inclined plane at a radially outer surface of the edge coupling ring. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing systems (abstract), Okita teaches a ring (6 Fig 5-6) surrounding the substrate to be lifted by a lift pin (7 Fig 6) including a radially outer surface of the edge ring having an inclined plane (see outer surface of ring 6 Fig 5-6). The inclined plane may function as a self-centering feature because it allows alignment with outer ring 36 (Fig 5). This is in addition to a self-centering recess (51 Fig 6) [0030] for the lift pin. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include modifying the shape of the outer surface of the ring of Yamamoto because Okita teaches an inclined plane at a radially outer surface of the edge ring and teaches inclined surfaces allow for self-centering [0030]. Further this modification represents a mere change of shape. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the outer surface of the edge ring. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above and the combination of Yamamoto in view of Fink and Okita remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 8 above. In the combination as applied to claim 8, the ring includes two self-centering features that are different – the groove for the lift pin as taught by Fink and the inclined outer edge as taught by Okita. Further note that Okita demonstrates these used together (see Fig 6) and teaches a third alignment feature (protrusions 52 Fig 6 and [0032]).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Fink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0031111 of Kobayashi, hereinafter Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto in view of Fink remains as applied to claim 1 above. The combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach a robot arm configured to remove the edge coupling ring from the processing chamber when the edge coupling ring is in the raised position. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system (abstract and Fig 12, 14A-D, 17), Kobayashi teaches a robot arm (190, 192 Fig 14A-D) configured to remove the edge coupling ring from the processing chamber when the edge coupling ring is in the raised position (see Fig 16B and [0148]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to include the robot arm configured to remove the edge coupling ring from the processing chamber when the edge coupling ring is in the raised position as taught by Kobayashi because Kobayashi teaches this allows for automated replacement of the edge ring (ring 124) [0149] without opening the chamber to atmosphere [0150].
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. Kobayashi teaches a holder connected to the robot arm (192 Fig 14A-D and [0135]) and separately teaches a transfer robot (560 Fig 17 [0165]) includes a holder (pick 566A,B Fig 17-18 [0165]) having protrusions (568 Fig 18 [0177]) for mating with a self-centering feature (recess) on the edge coupling ring [0176-0177]. The transfer robot of Kobayashi that includes the alignment protrusions (robot 560, 566A-B with protrusions 568 Fig 18) is not the same transfer robot that loads and unloads the edge ring (that is robot 190 in Fig 14A-D and 16B). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination as applied to claim 11 to include the alignment protrusions on the transfer robot for loading and unloading the edge ring because Kobayashi teaches the structure allows for alignment of the ring [0176-0177] and inclusion in the loading/unloading robot ensures the alignment is maintained (note Kobayashi admits alignment may be lost due to poor transfer accuracy [0144]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. Kobayashi teaches the robot arm removes the edge coupling ring from the processing chamber without requiring the processing chamber to be opened to atmospheric pressure [0150].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Fink and Kobayashi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0236749 of Koshimizu et al., hereinafter Koshimizu.
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto in view of Fink and Kobayashi remains as applied to claim 11 above. The combination as applied fails to teach the system further comprising a bottom edge coupling ring arranged below at least part of the edge coupling ring. Yamamoto teaches a bottom edge coupling ring (3a Fig 1 [0035]) but fails to teach this is arranged below at least part of the edge coupling ring. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing systems (abstract, Fig 1, 8), Koshimizu teaches the bottom edge coupling ring (14 Fig 8 [0038]) is arranged below at least part of the edge coupling ring (36B Fig 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to include the bottom edge coupling ring is arranged below at least part of the edge coupling ring because this represents a mere change of shape and because Koshimizu demonstrates this shape is known and is a functional alternative (Koshimizu [0038]).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Fink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2001-230239 of Morimoto et al., hereinafter Morimoto (citing machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto in view of Fink remains as applied to claim 1 above. The combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach a controller configured to move the edge coupling ring using the actuator in response to erosion of a plasma-facing surface of the edge coupling ring. Yamamoto teaches a controller (control unit 60) to control each part of the apparatus [0047] but fails to teach specifically a controller configured to move the edge coupling ring using the actuator in response to erosion of a plasma-facing surface of the edge coupling ring. In the same field of endeavor of a plasma processing system (abstract), Morimoto teaches a controller (60 Fig 4) configured to move the edge coupling ring using the actuator [0043-0050] in response to erosion of a plasma-facing surface of the edge coupling ring [0057-0061], [0089-0091]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to include controller configured to move the edge coupling ring using the actuator in response to erosion of a plasma-facing surface of the edge coupling ring because Morimoto teaches this arrangement allows for correction of the height to avoid charge up damage and improves uniformity of substrate processing [0059], [0061].
Regarding claim 16, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Morimoto as applied in the combination teaches the controller is configured to automatically move the edge coupling ring using the actuator after the edge coupling ring is exposed to a predetermined number of etching cycles [0080-0084] (note a lot is a predetermined number of etching cycles because each wafer etched is one cycle).
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Morimoto as applied in the combination teaches the controller is configured to automatically move the edge coupling ring using the actuator after the edge coupling ring is exposed to a predetermined period of etching [0069-0072].
Regarding claim 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Morimoto as applied in the combination teaches a sensor configured to communicate with the controller and to detect the erosion of the edge coupling ring [0057-0061], [0092-0098].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Fink and Morimoto as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2006/0157698 of Miyajima, hereinafter Miyajima.
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto in view of Fink and Morimoto remains as applied to claim 18 above. The combination as applied to claim 18 fails to teach a robot arm configured to communicate with the controller and to adjust a position of the sensor.. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing systems, Miyajima teaches a robot arm (107 Fig. 8 [0104], [0125]) configured to communicate with the controller [0108] and to adjust a position of the sensor [0108], [0111] (sensors 122,123 mounted on undersurface as explained in [0102]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the robot arm including the sensors and thus able to adjust the position of the ring erosion sensors because Miyajima teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement for monitoring the wear of the edge ring [0102].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Fink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,709,547 of Ni et al., hereinafter Ni.
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto in view of Fink remains as applied to claim 1 above. Yamamoto as applied in the combination teaches a controller (control unit 60) to control each part of the apparatus [0047] and as cited above regarding claim 1 teaches the actuator to move the edge ring which will be controlled by the controller [0047] and therefore may be considered to teach controller configured to move the edge coupling ring to a first position using the actuator for a first treatment of a substrate using a first edge coupling effect, but fails to teach the controller configured to move the edge coupling ring then to a second position using the actuator for a second treatment of a substrate using a second edge coupling effect that is different than the first edge coupling effect. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing system (abstract), Ni teaches a controller configured to move the edge coupling ring to specific positions for processing (col 6, ln 46 to 57) and teaches the controller to control the apparatus to perform the method of move the edge coupling ring to a first position (col 5, ln 40-55 and Fig 3A-3B) using the actuator ( for a first treatment of a substrate using a first edge coupling effect (step 504 and 506 Fig 5, col 6, ln 60 to col 7, ln 25, see Fig 3A) and then move to a second position using the actuator for a second treatment of a substrate using a second edge coupling effect that is different than the first edge coupling effect (step 508 and 510 Fig 5, col 6, ln 60 to col 7, ln 25, see Fig 3B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yamamoto to include being configured to mover the edge ring to different positions for different coupling effects during processing because Ni teaches such a configuration allows for the apparatus to perform chemically driven/assisted etches and ion driven/assisted etches on the same substrate in the same chamber and to use this to manage uniformity (col 3, ln 55 to col 4, ln 5).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,605,546, hereinafter ‘546, in view of Yamamoto. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-10 of ‘546 contain or render obvious all the limitations of instant claims 1-17 and 20 except for the moveable edge ring is supported by an upper surface of a plate of the pedestal. It is noted that the instant application is a continuation application of an application that was a continuation in part of the application which was allowed as patent US 11,605,546. Regarding the plate, Yamamoto teaches the pedestal including a baseplate (2a Fig 1 and [0035]) and at least one plate (shown not numbered in Fig 1 or plate 6b Fig 2(a),(b) [0037]) arranged on the baseplate (Fig 2 or 3(a)-(b), note it is on baseplate 2a); an inner portion of the edge coupling ring overlaps the at least one plate (Fig 1, 2, or 3(a)-(b), note that the outer portion may also overlap) of the pedestal; and when the edge coupling ring is in the raised position (Fig 3(a)), a bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is above an uppermost surface of the pedestal (Fig 3(a) it is above an uppermost surface of the portion of the pedestal below the edge coupling ring 5 and is positioned higher than the highest surface of the pedestal) to define a clearance gap between the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and the uppermost surface of the pedestal (see Fig 3(a)), wherein the clearance gap is directly below the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and above an upper surface of the at least one plate (Fig 3(a)), and wherein, when the edge coupling ring is in the lowered position (Fig 3(b)), the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is supported by the upper surface of the at least one plate (Fig 3(b) ring 5 is supported by 6b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of ‘546 to include the plate of Yamamoto with the claimed lowered positioning because Yamamoto teaches plate is an insulator for the pedestal [0037] (prevents arcing and protects the pedestal).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,658,222, hereinafter ‘222. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of ‘222 teach or render obvious all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Note that the instant application is a continuation of the application which was patented as ‘222 and that the instant claims are generic to the elected species of ‘222. If applicant intended to claim a different species, applicant should ensure the instant application is corrected to reflect being a divisional application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,027,410, hereinafter ‘410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of ‘410 teach or render obvious all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Note that the instant application is a continuation of the application which was patented as ‘410 and that the instant claims are generic to the elected species of the parent application. If applicant intended to claim a different species, applicant should ensure the instant application is corrected to reflect being a divisional application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0273460 teaches an edge ring (302 Fig 3) with a recess (314 Fig 3) for a lift pin (214 Fig 2). US 2012/0175063 teaches an edge ring that is able to be selectively lifted (Fig 3A). US 2014/0017900 teaches an edge ring that is able to be selectively lifted (Fig 4). US 2002/0072240 teaches raising an edge ring based on a sensor (5 Fig 2) [0027]. US 2009/0209122 an edge ring (226 Fig 2A) with a recess for a lift pin (232 Fig 2A). US 2015/0340209 teaches replacing a worn edge ring (Fig 3C). US 5,569,350 teaches an edge ring may be split into two edge rings with the outer edge ring having an inner portion under the inner edge ring (Fig 5(a)). US 2012/0247671 teaches moving an edge ring using a transfer robot (15c Fig 14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights