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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/23/2025, 01/05/2026, and 07/08/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation recites “an edge ring including a second body configured to be arranged on and electrostatically clamped to the edge ring support during plasma processing” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
In claim 18, line 3, it is suggested that the limitation recites “a baseplate” should be changed to --the baseplate-- to avoid antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12340989 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the two sets of claims are only minor structural variations that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of person of ordinary skill are taken into consideration. The claim limitations of the U.S Patent No. 12340989 B2 clearly anticipated the claim limitations of the pending application. They are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both capable performed the same function.
Regarding claims 1-14, the limitations of the applicant’s claims are obvious variations of the mapped claims above. The pending claim 1 uses different vernacular than the patented claims 1 and 2 of U.S Patent No. 12340989 B2. And the pending claim 2 is similar to patented claim 3. One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the claims are directed to substantially the same invention, and their structures are the same. The principle differences are that the pending claims are broader in scope than the patented claims. It is generally understood that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Alternatively, the elimination of an element and its structure is generally held to be within the skill of the art. They both are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both capable performed the same function. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the claims 1-14 of pending application contains the same structures and capable perform the same function as claims 1-25 of U.S Patent No. 12340989 B2.
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimball et al. (U.S Publication No. 20180166312 A1) in view of Kosakai et al. (U.S Publication No. 20200266088 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kimball discloses (FIGS. 1 and 6 and paragraphs [0014], [0032]-[0034] of the specification), an edge ring support (shown in FIGS. 1 and 6) configured to support an edge ring (116) in a plasma processing chamber (149), the edge ring support comprising: a first body (610); an electrostatic clamping electrode (612) arranged in the first body and configured to receive power from a first conductor (614); and a gas supply line (632) configured to supply a gas to an upper surface of the edge ring support (shown in FIG. 6), wherein the edge ring support is configured to be arranged above a baseplate (114) and radially outside of a substrate (104) in the plasma processing chamber (shown in FIG. 6), and wherein the edge ring support is configured to electrostatically clamp the edge ring during plasma processing (shown in FIGS. 1 and 6).
Kimball does not explicitly disclose a radio frequency (RF) electrode.
However, Kosakai discloses (FIGS. 11 and 16 and paragraphs [0120]-[0128], [0145]-[0149] of the specification) discloses a radio frequency (RF) electrode (71) arranged in a first body (412) and configured to receive power from a second conductor (47) (shown in FIGS. 11 and 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention was made to combine the disclosures of Kimbal and Kosakai in order to provide a radio frequency (RF) electrode configured to receive power from a second conductor.
The modification allows the high-frequency power source applies an RF (radio frequency) current for a bias voltage to the cooling base part (see paragraph [0119] by Kosakai). Moreover, the claimed invention does not produce any unexpected technical effect compared with the prior art.
Regarding Claim 16, Kimball in view of Kosakai discloses the edge ring support of claim 15, wherein: a cavity (650) is defined on the upper surface of the edge ring support (610), and the cavity (650) is configured to receive the gas supplied from the gas supply line (632), (see fig. 6 by Kimball).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimball et al. (U.S Publication No. 20180166312 A1) in view of Kosakai et al. (U.S Publication No. 20200266088 A1), and further in view of Kellogg et al. (U.S Publication No. 20200365378 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kimball in view of Kosakai discloses the edge ring support of claim 15, except for specifying that wherein the edge ring support comprises a threaded cavity extending from a bottom surface into the first body, and wherein the threaded cavity is configured to receive a threaded rod to provide downward mechanical force on the first body.
However, Kellogg discloses a threaded cavity extending from a bottom surface into the first body (112) (as shown in FIGS. 1-2), and a threaded rod (122), (see paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the disclosures of Kimball in view of Kosakai and Kellogg in order to provide threaded cavity is configured to receive a threaded rod to provide downward mechanical force on the first body. Moreover, the claimed invention does not produce any unexpected technical effect over the prior art.
Claims 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimball et al. (U.S Publication No. 20180166312 A1) in view of Kosakai et al. (U.S Publication No. 20200266088 A1), and further in view of Dhindsa et al. (U.S Publication No. 20140034243 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kimball in view of Kosakai discloses an edge ring system (100 by Kimball) comprising: the edge ring support of Claim 15 (as described above); a substrate support (108, see FIGS. 1 and 6 by Kimball) configured to support a substrate (104) during plasma processing and including a baseplate (114); an edge ring (116) including a second body configured to be arranged on (610) and electrostatically clamped (via electrode 612) to the edge ring support during plasma processing (as shown in FIG. 6 by Kimball).
Kimball in view of Kosakai does not explicitly disclose a first outer edge ring.
However, Dhindsa discloses a first outer edge ring (418, 420) arranged radially outside of the edge ring (416) and the edge ring support (414) (as shown in FIG. 4 and 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the disclosures of Kimball in view of Kosakai and Dhindsa in order to provide a first outer edge ring arranged radially outside of the edge ring and the edge ring support. Moreover, the claimed invention does not produce any unexpected technical effect over the prior art.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Kimball in view of Kosakai and Dhindsa discloses the edge ring system of claim 18, further comprising a first seal arranged between an inner surface of the first outer edge ring and an outer surface of the baseplate; and the edge ring system of claim 18, further comprising thermal interface material arranged between the edge ring support and an upper surface of the baseplate (The claims which directed to a first seal and thermal interface material, merely constitute a simple addition of conventional components in a plasma processing apparatus. Such modifications would have been readily conceived by a person having ordinary skill in the art, and no unexpected technical effect is produced thereby).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Also, the objections and the double patenting should be overcome in order to place the application in allowance condition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights