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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 09/26/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0128965 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “covering ring” should be “the cover ring.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “covering ring” should be “the cover ring.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Gas supply unit (gas supply line, gas storage unit, para. [0036]) in at least claims 11-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the covering ring is not integrally formed with the inner ring but separated from the inner ring” in the claim. Both limitations are true and do not negate each other, thus “but” should be replaced with “and.” Examiner interprets as “not integrally formed with the inner ring and separated from the inner ring.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein the inner ring includes a silicone material" in the claim. The specification states that the inner ring includes a silicon material (para. [0043]), not a silicone material. Examiner interprets "wherein the inner ring includes a silicon material." Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the covering ring is not integrally formed with the inner ring but separated from the inner ring” in the claim. Both limitations are true and do not negate each other, thus “but” should be replaced with “and.” Examiner interprets as “not integrally formed with the inner ring and separated from the inner ring.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the inner ring includes a silicone material" in the claim. The specification states that the inner ring includes a silicon material (para. [0043]), not a silicone material. Examiner interprets "wherein the inner ring includes a silicon material." Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the cover ring is not integrally formed with the inner ring but separated from the inner ring” in the claim. Both limitations are true and do not negate each other, thus “but” should be replaced with “and.” Examiner interprets as “not integrally formed with the inner ring and separated from the inner ring.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20250087465 to Ko.
Claims 1, 11: Ko discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate comprising: a chamber (CH [chamber], Fig. 1), in which a processing space (PS [process space]) where a plasma process is performed is formed (para. [0022-0023]); a support (ST/1 [electrostatic chuck]) provided inside the chamber (CH) and for supporting a substrate (W [substrate]); a ring assembly (FR, 3, 4) surrounding a top of the support (top of 1); and a gas supply unit (GS/MFC/IH) for supplying process gas into an inside of the chamber (CH, para. [0024]),
wherein the ring assembly comprises, an inner ring (FR [focus ring], Fig. 2); an outer ring (3 [outer ring]) provided outside the inner ring (FR); and a cover ring (4 [top ring]) provided on an upper surface of the outer ring (upper surface of 3), having a thickness smaller than that of the inner ring (Fig. 2), and made of a material that has a lower etching reaction to plasma than the outer ring (para. [0028], [0030]).
Regarding the limitations: in which a first plasma region is formed, in which a second plasma region with a lower plasma distribution than the first plasma region is formed, the apparatus of Ko is capable of performing as necessary due to have the structure necessary. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 2, 12: Ko discloses wherein the cover ring (4, Fig. 2, Ko) is not formed integrally with the inner ring (FR) and separated from the inner ring (FR).
Claim 6: Ko discloses wherein the cover ring (4, Fig. 2, Ko) is provided as a ring-shaped plate (4, Fig. 3).
Claims 8, 16: Ko discloses wherein the inner ring (FR, Fig. 2, Ko) includes a silicon material (para. [0028]), wherein the outer ring (3) includes a quartz material (para. [0030]).
Claim 9: Ko discloses wherein the cover ring (4, Fig. 2, Ko) comprises at least one material of silicon (Si) (para. [0048]), silicon carbide (SiC), and yttrium oxide (Y₂O₃).
Claim 10: Ko discloses wherein the cover ring (4, Fig. 2, Ko) is made of a ceramic material (para. [0048]).
Claim 15: Ko discloses wherein the outer ring (3, Fig. 2, Ko) has a step where the cover ring (4) is seated (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-12, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220076929 to Kim.
Claims 1, 11: Kim discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate comprising: a chamber (100 [process chamber], Fig. 1), in which a processing space (inside 100) where a plasma process is performed is formed (para. [0056]); a support (220 [support plate]) provided inside the chamber (100) and for supporting a substrate (W [substrate]); a ring assembly (245, 247a, 247b) surrounding a top of the support (top of 220); and a gas supply unit (300/321/320) for supplying process gas into an inside of the chamber (100, para. [0062]),
wherein the ring assembly comprises, an inner ring (245 [focus ring], Fig. 2); an outer ring (247a [cover ring]) provided outside the inner ring (245); and a cover ring (247b [reinforced surface layer]) provided on an upper surface of the outer ring (upper surface of 247a), having a thickness smaller than that of the inner ring (Fig. 2-3), and made of a material that has a lower etching reaction to plasma than the outer ring (para. [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding the limitations: in which a first plasma region is formed, in which a second plasma region with a lower plasma distribution than the first plasma region is formed, the apparatus of Kim is capable of performing as necessary due to have the structure necessary. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 2, 12: Kim discloses wherein the cover ring (247b, Fig. 2, Kim) is not formed integrally with the inner ring (245) and separated from the inner ring (245).
Claims 5, 17: Kim discloses wherein the cover ring (247b, Fig. 2, Kim) has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 7 mm (para. [0074] where 500µm overlaps the claimed range).
Claim 7: Kim discloses wherein the cover ring (247b, Fig. 2, Kim) is provided as a coating (247b, Fig. 2-3) on an upper surface of the outer ring (247a).
Claims 8, 16: Kim discloses wherein the inner ring (245, Fig. 2, Kim) includes a silicon material (para. [0070]), wherein the outer ring (247a) includes a quartz material (para. [0073]).
Claims 9, 17: Kim discloses wherein the cover ring (247b, Fig. 2, Kim) comprises at least one material of silicon (Si) (para. [0073-0074]), silicon carbide (SiC), and yttrium oxide (Y₂O₃).
Claim 10: Kim discloses wherein the cover ring (247b, Fig. 2, Kim) is made of a ceramic material (para. [0073-0074]).
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20060016561 to Choi.
Claim 1: Choi discloses a ring assembly for a substrate processing apparatus, in which a plasma process is performed, comprising: an inner ring (120 [edge ring member], Fig. 5); an outer ring (150 [shadow ring]) provided outside the inner ring (120); and
a cover ring (140 [focus ring]) provided on an upper surface of the outer ring (upper surface of 150), having a thickness smaller than that of the inner ring (Fig. 5), and made of a material that has a lower etching reaction to plasma than the outer ring (Fig. 5, see where cover ring has less etching in Fig. 5).
Regarding the limitations: in which a first plasma region is formed, in which a second plasma region with a lower plasma distribution than the first plasma region is formed, the apparatus of Ko is capable of performing as necessary due to have the structure necessary. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 6: Choi wherein the cover ring (140, Fig. 5) is provided as a ring-shaped plate (140, Fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 16-17 above, and further in view of US 20070169891 to Koshiishi.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14: The apparatus of Kim does not disclose (claims 3, 13) wherein a top of the outer ring comprises, a flat surface; and an inclined surface sloping downward from an edge of the flat surface in an outward direction; (claims 4, 14) wherein the cover ring covers the flat surface excluding the inclined surface of the outer ring.
Koshiishi discloses (claims 3, 13) wherein a top of the outer ring (top of 55 [ring-shaped insulation members], Fig. 11) comprises, a flat surface (inner top of 55); and an inclined surface (inclined surface of 55) sloping downward from an edge of the flat surface in an outward direction (Fig. 11); (claims 4, 14) wherein the cover ring (52 [upper member]) covers the flat surface excluding the inclined surface of the outer ring (55), for the purpose of preventing plasma from excessively spreading towards an outer peripheral direction (para. [0124]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Koshiishi with motivation to prevent plasma from excessively spreading towards an outer peripheral direction.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Kim in view of Koshiishi wherein the outer ring (55, Fig. 11, Koshiishi) has a step (Fig. 11) where the cover ring (52) is seated (Fig. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate comprising: a chamber, in which a processing space where a plasma etching process is performed is formed; a support provided inside the chamber and for supporting a substrate; a ring assembly surrounding a top of the support; and a gas supply unit for supplying process gas into an inside of the chamber, wherein the ring assembly comprises, an inner ring made of silicon, in which a first plasma region is formed;
an outer ring provided outside the inner ring and made of quartz material, in which a second plasma region with a lower plasma distribution than the first plasma region is formed; and a cover ring provided on an upper surface of the outer ring, not integrally formed with the inner ring but separated from the inner ring, having a thickness smaller than that of the inner ring, and made of a material that has a lower etching reaction to plasma than the outer ring, wherein the cover ring has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 7 mm, is provided as a ring-shaped plate containing at least one material of silicon (Si), silicon carbide (SiC), or yttrium oxide (Y₂O₃).
However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein a top of the outer ring has a flat surface and an inclined surface sloping downward from an edge of the flat surface in an outward direction, and covers the flat surface, as set forth in the present claims. The apparatus of Kim in view of Koshiishi, and Choi does not disclose the limitations as a combination above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable.
It is noted that 112 (b) rejection has been made over claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250087465 discloses an inner ring (FR, Fig. 2), outer ring (3) and cover ring (4) where the cover ring is a smaller thickness than the inner ring (FR), and is separated from the inner ring (Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights