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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
Actuating mechanism (actuators, para. [0051]) in claims 3-5, 13-15, 20.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the annular sleeve contacting the bottom surface of the edge ring" in the claim. The sleeve is not in contact with the edge ring (Fig. 2A-2B, 8A-8B, 12, para. [0052]) but the push pin is in contact with the edge ring through an opening of the sleeve (para. [0052], instant specification). Examiner interprets as “the annular sleeve below the bottom surface of the edge ring.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the annular sleeve contacting the bottom surface of the edge ring" in the claim. The sleeve is not in contact with the edge ring (Fig. 2A-2B, 8A-8B, 12, para. [0052]) but the push pin is in contact with the edge ring through an opening of the sleeve (para. [0052], instant specification). Examiner interprets as “the annular sleeve below the bottom surface of the edge ring.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
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) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170117172 to Genetti in view of US 20120175063 to Yamawaku and further in view of US 20090044751 to Park.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11, 16-19: Genetti discloses an apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus comprising: an electrostatic chuck (230 [electrostatic chuck], Fig. 4) having a first portion (central portion) and a second portion (outer portion), the first portion (central portion) configured to support the substrate (150 [wafer]); a process kit (236/238/208/202/232, Fig. 4) configured to interface with the second portion of the electrostatic chuck (outer portion of 230) a support ring (236/238);
an edge ring (208 [consumable part]) configured to interface with the stepped surface of the support ring (236/238), a bottom surface of the edge ring (bottom of 208) disposed directly over at least one of the first portion and the second portion (236/238); and a cover ring (232 [cover ring]) circumscribing at least the edge ring (208), the edge ring (208) independently moveable relative to the support ring (236/238) and the cover ring (232, para. [0077]).
However Genetti does not disclose the support ring having a first portion with a first thickness and a second portion with a second thickness less than the first thickness; the first portion and the second portion forming a stepped surface of the support ring; an annular sleeve disposed radially outward of the support ring and below the edge ring, the annular sleeve contacting the bottom surface of the edge ring; (claims 7, 17) wherein the support ring and the edge ring share a coplanar upper surface when the edge ring is in a lowermost position; (claims 8, 18) wherein the bottom surface of the edge ring is disposed above a bottom surface of both the first portion and the second portion of the support ring when the edge ring is in a lowermost position; (claims 9, 19) wherein the bottom surface of the edge ring is disposed on a portion of the cover ring.
Yamawaku discloses multiple interfacing configurations of two to three rings (25) interfacing together which can be coplanar or contacting different surfaces (Fig. 6A-6D), one configuration (Fig. 6C) a support ring (25d [block member]) comprising an upper surface having a radially inner edge disposed at a first height (upper surface with first height) and a radially outward edge disposed at a second height less than the first height (see Fig. 6C), the radially inner edge (inner edge of 25d) having a greater thickness than the radially outward edge (outer edge of 25d), an inner surface of the edge ring (inner edge of 25a [inner focus ring]) interfaced with the radially inner edge of the support ring (inner edge of 25d) for the purpose of restraining attachment of deposits (para. [0086]).
Yamawaku teach optimizing the shapes of the two to three rings as well as changing the arrangement of the rings, which renders the limitation obvious as well. The courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C). The courts have held that selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. MPEP 2144.04 III (B).
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 optimization of shape and interfacing configurations as taught by Yamawaku with motivation to restrain attachment of deposits.
Park discloses (claims 1, 11) an annular sleeve (530 [outer ring], Fig. 3) radially outward of the support ring (500 [holder ring]) and disposed below the edge ring (300 [focus ring]), the annular sleeve (530) below the bottom surface of the edge ring (bottom of 300); (claims 6, 16) wherein a gap (G1 [gap]) is formed between the support ring (500) and the annular sleeve (530); for the purpose of being an exhaust channel, through which, after reaction, ions remaining in the inner space of the chamber are exhausted outside of the chamber (para. [0075]).
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 annular sleeve, gap, and configuration as taught by Park with motivation to be an exhaust channel, through which, after reaction, ions remaining in the inner space of the chamber are exhausted outside of the chamber.
Claims 3, 13: The apparatus of Genetti in view of Yamawaku, Park discloses further comprising: an actuating mechanism (204 [actuators], Fig. 4, Genetti) configured to actuate the edge ring (208) such that a distance between the bottom surface of the edge ring (bottom of 208) and the second portion of the support ring is varied (236/238, see Fig. 4, para. [0077]).
Claims 4, 14: The apparatus of Genetti in view of Yamawaku, Park discloses wherein the actuating mechanism (204, Fig. 4, Genetti) comprises: a push pin (202 [lift pin]) disposed radially inward of an inner diameter of the cover ring (232, Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genetti in view of Yamawaku, Park as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 16-19 above, and further in view of US 5748434 to Rossman.
Claims 2, 12: The apparatus of Genetti in view of Yamawaku, Park does not disclose wherein the cover ring is fabricated from quartz.
Rossman discloses wherein the cover ring (68 [collar], Fig. 3) is fabricated from quartz (col. 4, lines 58-63) for the purpose of being a quartz outer jacket and/or to decrease the time required to clean the chamber (col. 4, lines 58-64).
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 material requirement as taught by Rossman with motivation to be a quartz outer jacket and/or to decrease the time required to clean the chamber.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genetti in view of Yamawaku, Park as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 16-19 above, and further in view of US 20090041568 to Muroaka.
Claims 5, 15: The apparatus of Genetti in view of Yamawaku, Park does not disclose wherein the push pin is fabricated from quartz.
Muraoka discloses wherein the push pin (24 [lifter pin], Fig. 2) is fabricated from quartz (para. [0045]) for the purpose of having corrosion resistance and heat resistance (para. [0045]).
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 material requirement as taught by Muraoka with motivation to have corrosion resistance and heat resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected independent claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected independent claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250316460, US 20250308859, US 20180218933, US 20230215753, US 20200185256, all disclose actuation of the one or more push pins results in vertical actuation, or displacing, of the outer ring, the inner ring, and the cover ring (if used) relative to an upper surface of the substrate.
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