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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on April 20, 2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5, 7-10, and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note. Claims 3-5 are withdrawn since they are directed to Species-Figures 6-7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anada et al. (U.S. 2016/0276198) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2019/0287838), Larosa et al. (U.S. 2019/0371578), (Raj et al. (U.S. 2014/0268478) and Goto (U.S. 2009/0230636), and (Yonekura et al. (U.S. 2009/0059461).
Referring to Figures 1-2, 7, and 9 and paragraphs [0083]-[0096], [0120]-[0125], and [0135]-[0137], Anada et al. teach an electrostatic chuck, comprising: a base 50, wherein a first through-hole 53 is formed in the base, a shunt part comprising a porous plug 71 is provided in the first through-hole to partition the first through-hole into a plurality of sub-through-holes (par.[0099]), and a filled layer 72 is formed between the shunt part and a sidewall of the first through-hole (pars.[0083],[0098]-[0099]); and a disc structure 11 disposed on and adhered to the base with an adhesive layer 60, 73 (pars.[0089],[0135]) wherein an upper surface of the disc structure is configured to hold the wafer (Fig. 1), and a second through-hole 15 is provided in and axially penetrating through the disc structure, the second through-hole communicating with the first through-hole 53 (Fig. 4, par.[0101]), and an interlayer gap is provided between the shunt part 71 and the disc structure 11 (Fig. 4); wherein the filled layer is made of a same material as the adhesive layer and contacts with bottom surface of the disc structure 11 (i.e. the filled layer and adhesive layer can both be made of an insulating film with bonding agent (pars. [0124],[0135])).
Anada et al. is silent on wherein a volume of the plurality of sub-through-holes in the porous plug is 20-29% of a volume of the porous plug.
Referring to paragraph [0183], Yamaguchi et al. teach an electrostatic chuck uses a porous plug and wherein a volume of the plurality of sub-through-holes in the porous plug is 20-29% of a volume of the porous plug. The porosity of the material is selected to allow a desired gas flow rate during substrate processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrostatic chuck of Anada et al. with wherein a volume of the plurality of sub-through-holes in the porous plug is 20-29% of a volume of the porous plug as taught by Yamaguchi et al. in order to achieve the desired gas flow rate during substrate processing.
Anada et al. is silent on an isolation layer formed on sidewall of the shunt part and extending into the interlayer gap and contacts with the bottom surface of the disc structure, wherein the filled layer is provided between the isolation layer and sidewall of the first through-hole.
Referring to Figure 3 and paragraph [0038]-[0041], Larosa et al. teach an electrostatic chuck wherein an isolation layer 276 formed on sidewall of the shunt part 244 and extending into the interlayer gap and contacts with the bottom surface of the disc structure in order to effectively shield the bond layer from shunt part and hence prevent deterioration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrostatic chuck of Anada et al. with an isolation layer formed on sidewall of the shunt part and extending into the interlayer gap and contacts with the bottom surface of the disc structure, wherein the filled layer is provided between the isolation layer and sidewall of the first through-hole as taught by Larosa et al. in order to effectively shield the bond layer from shunt part and hence prevent deterioration. Thus, the resulting apparatus of Anada et al. in view of Larosa et al. would yield an isolation layer formed on sidewall of the shunt part and extending into the interlayer gap and contacts with the bottom surface of the disc structure, wherein the filled layer is provided between the isolation layer and sidewall of the first through-hole.
Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Larosa et al. fail to teach wherein a chamfering is formed at the upper opening of the first through-hole, and a dielectric layer is provided between the base and the adhesive layer bonding the base and the disc structure, the dielectric layer covering the chambering.
Referring to Figure 3 and paragraph [0037], Raj et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the electrostatic chuck art for wherein a chamfering is formed at the upper opening of the first through-hole to prevent arcing. Referring to Figure 1A and paragraphs [0034]-[036], Goto teach that it is conventionally known in the electrostatic chuck art for a dielectric layer is provided between the base and the dielectric layer covering the chambering in order to prevent arcing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrostatic chuck of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Larosa et al. a chamfering is formed at the upper opening of the first through-hole, and a dielectric layer is provided between the base and the adhesive layer bonding the base and the disc structure, the dielectric layer covering the chambering as taught by Raj et al. and Goto in order to prevent arcing. The resulting apparatus of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., Raj et al. and Goto would yield wherein a chamfering is formed at the upper opening of the first through-hole, and a dielectric layer is provided between the base and the adhesive layer bonding the base and the disc structure, the dielectric layer covering the chambering.
Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., Raj et al. and Goto is silent on the dielectric layer covering an upper surface of the chambering and covering an upper surface of the base where the first through-hole is not provided.
Referring to Figure 7B and paragraphs [0049]-[0050], Yonekura et al. teach it’s conventionally known for an electrostatic chuck to include a dielectric layer 12 that covers an upper surface of the base where the first through-hole is not provided in order to promote sufficient heat insulation effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrostatic chuck of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., Raj et al. and Goto with wherein the dielectric layer covers an upper surface of the base where the first through-hole is not provided as taught by Yonekura et al. in order to promote sufficient heat insulation effect. The resulting apparatus of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., Raj et al., Goto, and Yonekura et al. would yield the dielectric layer covering an upper surface of the chambering and covering an upper surface of the base where the first through-hole is not provided.
With respect to claim 6, the electrostatic chuck of Anada et al. in view of Larosa et al. further includes wherein the distance between the filled layer and the disc structure being smaller than the interlayer gap (Anada et al.-Fig. 4, Larosa et al.-Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 11, the electrostatic chuck of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., Raj et al., Goto, and Yonekura et al. further includes the dielectric layer is for bonding the base and disc structure (Yonekura et al.-Figure 7B and paragraphs [0049]-[0050])
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anada et al. (U.S. 2016/0276198) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2019/0287838), Larosa et al. (U.S. 2019/0371578), (Raj et al. (U.S. 2014/0268478) and Goto (U.S. 2009/0230636), and (Yonekura et al. (U.S. 2009/0059461) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2020/0066564).
The teachings of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., (Raj et al. and Goto), and Yonekura et al. have been discussed above.
Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., (Raj et al. and Goto), and Yonekura et al. are silent on an upper electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0046], [0049], Wang et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to provide the chamber with an upper electrode in order to perform capacitively coupled plasma. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., (Raj et al. and Goto), and Yonekura et al. with an upper electrode as taught by Wang et al. in order to perform capacitively coupled plasma.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anada et al. (U.S. 2016/0276198) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2019/0287838), Larosa et al. (U.S. 2019/0371578), (Raj et al. (U.S. 2014/0268478) and Goto (U.S. 2009/0230636), and (Yonekura et al. (U.S. 2009/0059461) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, and further in view of Takasaki (U.S. 2019/0252231).
The teachings of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., (Raj et al. and Goto), and Yonekura et al. have been discussed above.
Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., (Raj et al. and Goto), and Yonekura et al. are silent on further comprising an isolation layer formed on sidewall of the shunt part has a thickness of about 50 mm.
Referring to Figure 7 and paragraph [0038], Takasaki teaches an electrostatic chuck that further comprises an isolation layer 36 formed on the sidewall of the shunt part has a specific thickness so that the air permeability of the shunt part is not significantly impaired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the isolation layer of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., (Raj et al. and Goto), and Yonekura et al. to have a thickness of about 50 mm as taught by Takasaki thickness so that the air permeability of the shunt part is not significantly impaired. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
With respect to claim 18, the electrostatic chuck of Anada et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Larosa et al., (Raj et al. and Goto), Yonekura et al. and Takasaki further includes wherein the isolation layer 36 comprises an organic dielectric layer (Takasaki-par.[0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because new reference Yamaguchi et al.’568 teach wherein a volume of the plurality of sub-through-holes in the porous plug is 20-29% of a volume of the porous plug.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pilgrim’568, Shiraishi et al.’768, Miyazawa’731, Divakar’234, and Parkhe et al.’323 teach wherein a volume of the plurality of sub-through-holes in the porous plug is 20-29% of a volume of the porous plug.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716