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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a typo where “method” is missing from line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4-9,11,12,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al (US20050252454) in view of Laia et al (US20100258173).
With regards to claim 1, Parkhe et al discloses a method comprising: obtaining a chamber component of a vacuum processing chamber (obtaining a support component 20 of a vacuum chamber 106, Fig. 7A), the chamber component comprising: a surface, wherein the surface is a metal (pedestal body 154 comprises a metal material, paragraph 0060,lines 10-12); and a seal groove formed in the surface of the chamber component (grooves 159 formed on body 154, Fig. 2A), the seal groove designed to accept a ring shaped gasket (the surface 22 of the pedestal body 154 comprises a pattern of grooves 159 that is capable of equalizing the pressure on the front and backside of a substrate 104 placed on the surface 22, paragraph 0065, lines 1-2), the seal groove having a depth from the surface to a bottom of the recess seal groove ranging from about 0.5 mm to about 10 mm and a width ranging from about 1 mm to about 15 mm (the grooves 159 may comprise a depth of from about 0.5 mm (0.02 inches) to about 1 mm (0.04 inches), such as about 0.8 mm (0.03 inches), paragraph 0066, lines 2-4).
Parkhe et al does not disclose polishing the bottom of the seal groove using a laser treatment to form a polished bottom having an Ra number of 1 micron or less.
Laia et al teaches polishing the bottom of the seal groove using a laser treatment to form a polished bottom having an Ra number of 1 micron or less (it is desirable to have some means for treating example thin metallic substrate 204 to remove at least one defect up to about 5 .mu.m below the surface of example thin metallic substrate 204, paragraph 0034, lines 10-13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Parkhe et al and Laia et al before him or her, to modify the method of Parkhe et al to include the polishing of Laia et al because combination provides removal of at least one defect and achieves a smooth surface.
With regards to claim 2, Parkhe et al discloses wherein the chamber component is a substrate support configured to hold a substrate for processing in the vacuum processing chamber (component 20 supports substrate 104 for processing in a process chamber 106, Fig. 2A,7A).
With regards to claim 4, Laia et al teaches wherein the laser treatment is laser ablation comprising exposing the bottom of the seal groove to a laser radiation (the laser preferentially heats regions of the surface having lesser heat capacity than the base portion of the thin metallic substrate, for example, regions with the topography of a protrusion or pit. In addition, such features can be removed by laser smoothing based on laser ablation, paragraph 0061, lines 7-9).
With regards to claim 5, Laia et al teaches wherein the laser radiation has a power ranging from about .4 watts to about 400 watts (laser may have an average power of 50 watts, paragraph 0053, lines 2-3).
With regards to claim 6, Parkhe et al discloses wherein the surface is stainless steel (pedestal body 154 is made of stainless steel, paragraph 0060, lines 11-12).
With regards to claim 7, Parkhe et al discloses wherein the seal groove is formed by milling (the grooves 159 are formed by machining, paragraph 0064, lines 3-5).
With regards to claim 8, Parkhe et al a method comprising: obtaining a chamber component of a vacuum processing chamber (obtaining a support component 20 of a vacuum chamber 106, Fig. 7A), the chamber component comprising: a surface, wherein the surface is a metal (pedestal body 154 comprises a metal material, paragraph 0060,lines 10-12); a seal groove formed in the surface, the seal groove designed to accept a ring shaped gasket (the surface 22 of the pedestal body 154 comprises a pattern of grooves 159 that is capable of equalizing the pressure on the front and backside of a substrate 104 placed on the surface 22, paragraph 0065, lines 1-2); and a scratch disposed in a bottom surface of the seal groove (grooves 159 are formed by machining which would result in scratches, paragraph 0064, lines 3-5), the seal groove having a depth from the surface to the bottom surface ranging from about 0.5 mm to about 10 mm and a width ranging from about 1 mm to about 15 mm (the grooves 159 may comprise a depth of from about 0.5 mm (0.02 inches) to about 1 mm (0.04 inches), such as about 0.8 mm (0.03 inches), paragraph 0066, lines 2-4).
Parkhe et al does not disclose removing the scratch from the bottom surface of the seal groove using a laser treatment to form a polished bottom surface having an Ra number of 1 micron or less.
Laia et al teaches removing the scratch from the bottom surface of the seal groove using a laser treatment to form a polished bottom surface having an Ra number of 1 micron or less (it is desirable to have some means for treating example thin metallic substrate 204 to remove at least one defect up to about 5 .mu.m below the surface of example thin metallic substrate 204, paragraph 0034, lines 10-13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Parkhe et al and Laia et al before him or her, to modify the method of Parkhe et al to include the polishing of Laia et al because combination provides removal of at least one defect and achieves a smooth surface.
With regards to claim 9, Parkhe et al discloses wherein the chamber component is a substrate support configured to hold a substrate for processing in the vacuum processing chamber (component 20 supports substrate 104 for processing in a process chamber 106, Fig. 2A,7A).
With regards to claim 11, Laia et al teaches wherein the laser treatment is laser ablation comprising exposing the bottom of the seal groove to a laser radiation (the laser preferentially heats regions of the surface having lesser heat capacity than the base portion of the thin metallic substrate, for example, regions with the topography of a protrusion or pit. In addition, such features can be removed by laser smoothing based on laser ablation, paragraph 0061, lines 7-9).
With regards to claim 12, Laia et al teaches wherein the laser radiation has a power ranging from about .4 watts to about 400 watts (laser may have an average power of 50 watts, paragraph 0053, lines 2-3).
With regards to claim 16, Parkhe et al discloses a method comprising: obtaining a substrate support of a vacuum processing chamber (obtaining a support component 20 of a vacuum chamber 106, Fig. 7A), the substrate support comprising: a surface, wherein the surface is a metal (pedestal body 154 comprises a metal material, paragraph 0060,lines 10-12); a seal groove formed in the surface, the seal groove designed to accept a ring shaped gasket (the surface 22 of the pedestal body 154 comprises a pattern of grooves 159 that is capable of equalizing the pressure on the front and backside of a substrate 104 placed on the surface 22, paragraph 0065, lines 1-2); a scratch in a bottom surface of the seal groove (grooves 159 are formed by machining which would result in scratches, paragraph 0064, lines 3-5), the seal groove having a depth from the surface to the bottom surface ranging from about 0.5 mm to about 10 mm and a width ranging from about 1 mm to about 15 mm (the grooves 159 may comprise a depth of from about 0.5 mm (0.02 inches) to about 1 mm (0.04 inches), such as about 0.8 mm (0.03 inches), paragraph 0066, lines 2-4).
Parkhe et al does not disclose removing the scratch from the bottom surface of the seal groove using a laser treatment to form a polished bottom surface having an Ra number of 1 micron or less.
Laia et al teaches removing the scratch from the bottom surface of the seal groove using a laser treatment to form a polished bottom surface having an Ra number of 1 micron or less(it is desirable to have some means for treating example thin metallic substrate 204 to remove at least one defect up to about 5 .mu.m below the surface of example thin metallic substrate 204, paragraph 0034, lines 10-13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Parkhe et al and Laia et al before him or her, to modify the method of Parkhe et al to include the polishing of Laia et al because combination provides removal of at least one defect and achieves a smooth surface.
With regards to claim 17, Laia et al teaches wherein the laser radiation has a power ranging from about .4 watts to about 400 watts (laser may have an average power of 50 watts, paragraph 0053, lines 2-3).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al and Laia et al as applied to claim 12 and 17 above, and further in view of Nangoy (US 9,034,771).
With regards to claims 13 and 18, Parkhe et al and Laia et al does not teach wherein the laser radiation has a pulse duration ranging from about 10 femtoseconds to about 100 nanoseconds.
Nangoy teaches wherein the laser radiation has a pulse duration ranging from about 10 femtoseconds to about 100 nanoseconds (the femtosecond laser sources have a pulse width approximately in the range of 10 femtoseconds to 500 femtoseconds, col 20, lines 1-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Parkhe et al, Laia et al and Nangoy before him or her, to modify the method of Parkhe et al and Laia et al to include the laser source configuration of Nangoy because combination provides a laser that minimizes chipping, microcracks and other deficiencies during machining.
With regards to claims 14 and 19, Nangoy teaches wherein the laser radiation has a repetition rate ranging from about 1 KHz to about 10 MHz (the spacial beam profile at the work surface may be a single mode (Gaussian) or have a shaped top-hat profile. In an embodiment, the laser source has a pulse repetition rate approximately in the range of 200 kHz to 10 MHz, col 20, lines 14-17).
With regards to claims 15 and 20, Laia teaches wherein the laser radiation has a scan rate ranging from about 0.01 meters per second to about 30 meters per second (the spot may be rastered across the surface of the sample in a raster pattern with a speed of about 4 meters per second (m/s) using a laser galvanometer scanner to produce an overall rate of laser smoothing of about 100 square centimeters per second (cm.sup.2/s), paragraph 0053, lines 7-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761