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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group1, Species II-Figure 7, Group 2, Species A-Figure 2 (claims 1-3 and 9-10) in the reply filed on August 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-8 and 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Note. Claim limitation, “a drive device configured to move the edge ring upward based on wear of the edge ring” is not considered a means plus function limitation since the term “drive” gives sufficient structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshimizu et al. (U.S. 2008/0236749).
Referring to Figures 1, 8, and 9A and paragraphs [0037]-[0049], Koshimizu et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 10 (par.[0037]); a substrate support 12 disposed in the chamber and including an electrode (par.[0038]); an edge ring 36 disposed so as to surround a substrate on the substrate support (par.[0041]); a bias RF generator 28 electrically connected to the electrode and configured to generate a bias RF signal having a first frequency (par.[0040]); a source RF generator 30 configured to generate a source RF signal to generate a plasma from a gas in the chamber, the source RF signal having a second frequency greater than the first frequency, the source RF signal having a first power level during a first half period in a cycle defined by the first frequency, and a second power level during a second half period in the cycle, the second power level being less than the first power level (pars. [0040], [0046]-[0049], Note. The apparatus of Koshimizu et al. has a structure of a controller that controls the source RF generator 30. Therefore, the controller is capable of and can be operated such that the source RF signal having a first power level during a first half period in a cycle defined by the first frequency, and a second power level during a second half period in the cycle, the second power level being less than the first power level); and a drive device 76 configured to move the edge ring 36 upward based on wear of the edge ring (pars. [0069]-[0072]).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
636
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. further includes wherein the second power level is zero power level (As stated above, the controller is capable of and can be operated such that the second power level is zero power level).
With respect to claim 3, the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. further includes wherein the first frequency is in a range of 50 kHz to 27 MHz, and the second frequency is in a range of 27 MHz to 100 MHz (par.[0040]).
With respect to claim 9, the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. further includes wherein the source RF generator 30 is connected to the electrode of the substrate support 12 through a matching circuit 32 (par.[0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu et al. (U.S. 2008/0236749) in view of Nagami et al. (U.S. 2018/0366305).
The teachings of Koshimizu et al. have been discussed above.
Koshimizu et al. fail to teach a voltage sensor configured to directly or indirectly measure a potential of the substrate.
Referring to Figures 1 and 5 and paragraphs [0046], [0061]-[0066], Nagami et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art to use a voltage sensor 76c configured to directly or indirectly measure a potential of the substrate in order to determine the consumption of an edge ring (par.[0065]). Therefore, 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 the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. with a voltage sensor configured to directly or indirectly measure a potential of the substrate as taught by Nagami et al. in order to determine the consumption of the edge ring. The resulting apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Nagami et al. would yield a voltage sensor 76c configured to directly or indirectly measure a potential of the substrate.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,337,297 in view of Koshimizu et al. (U.S. 2008/0236749).
Referring to claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,337,297, U.S. Patent No. 11, 337,297 discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber; a substrate support disposed in the chamber and including an electrode; an edge ring disposed so as to surround a substrate on the substrate support; a bias RF generator electrically connected to the electrode and configured to generate a bias RF signal having a first frequency; and a source RF generator configured to generate a source RF signal to generate a plasma from a gas in the chamber, the source RF signal having a second frequency greater than the first frequency, the source RF signal having a first power level during a first half period in a cycle defined by the first frequency, and a second power level during a second half period in the cycle, the second power level being less than the first power level.
U.S. Patent No. 11,337,297 is silent on a drive device configured to move the edge ring upward based on wear of the edge ring.
Referring to Figure 8 and paragraphs [0069]-[0072], Koshimizu et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a drive device 76 configured to move the edge ring 36 upward based on wear of the edge ring in order to generate an uniform plasma distribution (Fig. 9A). Therefore, 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 the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,337,297 with a drive device configured to move the edge ring upward based on wear of the edge ring as taught by Koshimizu et al. in order to generate an uniform plasma distribution.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,361,947 in view of Koshimizu et al. (U.S. 2008/0236749).
Referring to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 361,947, U.S. Patent No. 11, 361,947 discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber; a substrate support disposed in the chamber and including an electrode; an edge ring disposed so as to surround a substrate on the substrate support; a bias RF generator electrically connected to the electrode and configured to generate a bias RF signal having a first frequency; and a source RF generator configured to generate a source RF signal to generate a plasma from a gas in the chamber, the source RF signal having a second frequency greater than the first frequency, the source RF signal having a first power level during a first half period in a cycle defined by the first frequency, and a second power level during a second half period in the cycle, the second power level being less than the first power level.
U.S. Patent No. 11, 361,947 is silent on a drive device configured to move the edge ring upward based on wear of the edge ring.
Referring to Figure 8 and paragraphs [0069]-[0072], Koshimizu et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a drive device 76 configured to move the edge ring 36 upward based on wear of the edge ring in order to generate an uniform plasma distribution (Fig. 9A). Therefore, 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 the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11, 361,947 with a drive device configured to move the edge ring upward based on wear of the edge ring as taught by Koshimizu et al. in order to generate an uniform plasma distribution.
With respect to claim 10, the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11, 361,947 discloses a voltage sensor configured to directly or indirectly measure a potential of the substrate (see claim 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koshimizu’887, Takahashi et al.’249, Tanikawa’691, Albarede et al.’194, Moriya et al.’557, Tanikawa’315, Yamawaku et al.’884, McChesney et al.’478, Yamamoto’124, Yamawaku et al.’063, and Kobayashi’111 teach a chamber, substrate support, a bias RF generator, a source RF generator, and an edge ring drive device. Papasouliotis et al.’049 teach multiple power levels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/Michelle CROWELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights