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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted 05/12/2025 does not contain any cited references. As such, while the IDS has been considered there were no specific references to review.
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.
Claim 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.
The term “high specific gravity” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(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, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US20220122878).
In reference to claim 1:
Wu discloses a plasma processing apparatus (para 0013) comprising:
a plasma processing chamber (para 0075; Fig. 1);
a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma from a processing gas in the plasma processing chamber (para 0090-0091); and
a substrate support disposed in the plasma processing chamber (para 0094),
wherein the substrate support includes:
a base (Figs. 4A-4F showing the “base” at the bottom on both sides of the lift pin 142a and 142b);
an electrostatic chuck disposed above the base and having a substrate support surface (para 0094; Fig. 2);
a first annular member disposed to surround a substrate on the substrate support surface (Figs. 2 and 4A top ring 200);
a second annular member disposed below the first annular member and having a plurality of through holes (Fig. 3 showing bottom ring 234);
a plurality of lift pins disposed to correspond to the respective through holes (para 0092; Fig. 3), each lift pin having an upper portion having a first width (Fig. 3B top member 142a) and a lower portion having a second width larger than the first width (Fig. 3B bottom member 142b), wherein the upper portion is configured to support the first annular member through the corresponding through hole of the second annular member (Figs. 4A-4F);
at least one spacer fixed to at least one of the plurality of lift pins, the spacer being disposed on the lower portion so as to surround the upper portion, and the spacer being configured to support the second annular member (para 0106; Figs. 3B and 4F; Applicant’s published specification at para 0056 states “the spacer 133 may be fixed to the first pin portion 131 a by fitting the spacer 133 thereto as shown in FIG. 5A”, as such the disclosure of Wu meets the claimed “fixed”); and
at least one actuator configured to vertically move the plurality of lift pins (para 0120).
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Wu further discloses wherein the spacer is made of an insulating material (para 0103, ceramics are known insulators such as the sapphire disclosed as usable for the lift pins in para 0100).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Wu further discloses wherein the at least one actuator is configured to vertically move the plurality of lift pins between a first upper position, a second upper position and a lower position, the first annular member is disposed at a first height when the plurality of lift pins are at the first upper position, and the second annular member is disposed at the first height when the plurality of lift pins are at the second upper position (Figs. 4A-4F and 6A-6F), and
the spacer has a vertical dimension determined based on a distance between the lower portion and the second annular member in case that the plurality of lift pins are at the first upper position (Figs. 4A-4F and 6A-6F; the size of the sleeve determines the distance between the lower portion and upper portion).
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.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ni (US20100271744A1) as evidenced by Takagi (US20030015141).
In reference to claims 3 and 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Wu fails to disclose wherein the spacer is made of a conductive material (claim 3) or wherein the conductive material is SiC (claim 6). However, this would have been obvious in view of Ni. Ni teaches a system for removing residual charge from a processed wafer (abstract). Ni further teaches utilizing a conductive lift pin in order to remove the residual charge from the processed wafer (para 0010-0011). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the conductive lift pins of Ni in the apparatus of Wu in order to obtain an apparatus which removes residual charge from a processed wafer. It would have been further obvious to utilize the same material for the spacer of Wu in order to ensure compatible thermal expansion coefficients, which is a known concern in plasma processing (see Takagi para 0010).
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the insulating material is quartz or sapphire. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select ceramics known in the art for semiconductor processing (see paras 0094, 0100, 0103; See MPEP 2144.07).
In reference to claims 9 and 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the spacer has a support surface for supporting the second annular member, and the support surface is downwardly inclined from an inner portion to an outer portion of the support surface (claim 9) or wherein the support surface has a tapered shape or a round shape (claim 10). However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to that skilled artisan to provide a tapered sleeve with a matched support surface because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,354,849B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 13 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,354,849B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,354,849B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 15 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,354,849B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Non-Statutory 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 2, 3, and 5-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,849B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘849 patent recite substantially identical limitations with the exception of the limitations of instant claim 4 being present in claim 1 of the ‘849 patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueda (US20070212200)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights