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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to put the thermistors “within the electrostatic chuck”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2018/0350569 to Kaneko et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0134775 to Ohashi et al and United States Patent Application No. 2019/0332094 to Musselman et al is presented below. Ohashi teaches a thermistor and Musselman teaches the positioning of said thermistor.
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) 13-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0350569 to Kaneko et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0134775 to Ohashi et al and United States Patent Application No. 2019/0332094 to Musselman et al.
In regards to Claim 13, Kaneko teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 2-4, 6, 8 comprising: a substrate processing chamber 12; a conductive base 28 [0042] disposed inside the substrate processing chamber; an electrostatic chuck 26 disposed above the conductive base and including a plurality of divided regions (heater zones Z2) which is divided in plural along a radial direction and along a circumferential direction (see concentric divisions of the zones of Z2 in Fig. 6 that has the heaters of 26C); and a control board 71/72 disposed in a space 18s which is divided (separate from by space occupied of 71, 72) and formed inside the conductive base (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the electrostatic chuck 26 includes: a plurality of heaters 26c, each of which is disposed inside each of the plurality of divided regions (as shown in Fig. 6); and a plurality of thermistors (resistor 72r that is used to determine the duty cycle and measured voltage and compared with a data set for temperature control, i.e., is effected by thermal teachings to form a temperature measuring element with 72m), each of which is disposed between each of the plurality of heaters (as they are below and provided for each heater 26c in Fig. 8) and is configured to measure a temperature inside each of the plurality of divided regions and wherein the control board includes: a plurality of switches SWD, each of which is electrically connected to each of the plurality of heaters (see power lines of 72p); a plurality of voltage measurers 72m, each of which is configured to measure a voltage value between both ends of each of the plurality of thermistors [0082]; and a heater controller 72f and UC configured to control a supply of an electric power to the corresponding heater among the plurality of heaters by controlling the corresponding switch among the plurality of switches [0080-0084] based on the voltage value measured through the corresponding voltage measurer among the plurality of voltage measurers, 72f and UC performs feedback control on the power supplied and their duty ratios, as the UC determines the target values of the power amounts for a desired temperature distribution from a collected data set [0080-0092], such that the feedback from the voltage measurer and thermistor is implicitly used for temperature measurement [0023-0126].
PNG
media_image1.png
632
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaneko does not expressly teach the thermistors are disposed between each of the plurality of heaters and an upper surface of the conductive base inside each of the plurality of divided regions, nor does Kaneko expressly teach the 72r, 72m is a thermistor.
Ohashi teaches that a temperature measurement element can be a thermocouple, a temperature measuring platinum resistor, or a thermistor [0047].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Kaneko with the teachings of Ohashi, and substituted the temperature measurement element of Kaneko with the thermistor of Ohashi as an art analogous structure for measuring temperature.
Kaneko in view of Ohashi does not expressly teach that thermistor/temperature measuring element is between the heaters and an upper surface of the conductive base in each of the plurality of divided regions.
Musselman teaches that a temperature measuring element can be placed within the electrostatic chuck 200 wherein the temperature sensors/measuring elements 220 are within the top plate/electrostatic chuck above a conductive base 228 [0072], the elements being below heaters 212 and above the top of the conductive base 228 and in the zones [0070], the probes being there to average to reduce variability due to sensor construction, calibration, and/or spatial variation in zones [0070; 0050-0119].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Kaneko in view of Ohashi by placing the thermistor of Kaneko in view of Ohashi in each of the zones in a position that is between the heater and the upper surface of the conductive base, and within the electrostatic chuck (as it is placed in the top plate above the conductive base plate), as per the teachings of Musselman. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of o reduce variability due to sensor construction, calibration, and/or spatial variation in zones. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 14, Kaneko teaches the control board 72 is electrically connected to an electric power supplier 82 for supplying the electric power through an RF filter F21, F22 provided outside the substrate processing chamber, as shown in Fig. 8.
In regards to Claim 15, Kaneko teaches each of the plurality of switches SWD is electrically connected to an electric power supplier 82 for supplying the electric power through an RF filter F21, F22 provided outside the substrate processing chamber (as shown in Fig. 4, 8).
In regards to Claim 16, Kaneko teaches the RF filter F21, F22 is surrounded by a shield member FU electrically connected to a housing of the substrate processing chamber (as shown in Fig. 2, 3, 4), which is electrically grounded [0037].
In regards to Claim 17, Kaneko teaches the plurality of thermistors 72r is disposed below the plurality of heaters (as shown in Fig. 8).
In regards to Claim 18, Kaneko each of the plurality of voltage measurers includes: a reference resistor F21, F22 (as filters implicitly have resistors therein) connected to the corresponding thermistor among the plurality of thermistors in series (as they are in line); a reference voltage supplier 82 electrically connected to the reference resistor; and an analog digital converter (ADC) (temperature sensor TS converted to a digital signal in TC [0079]) electrically connected between the reference resistor and the corresponding thermistor among the plurality of thermistors [0080-0087].
In regards to Claim 19, Kaneko teaches the conductive base includes: a lower electrode 22; and a cover plate 18 disposed below the lower electrode and electrically connected to the lower electrode (as shown in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 20, Kaneko teaches the heater controller 72f, UC is configured to hold a temperature difference between a temperature of the corresponding divided region among the plurality of divided regions (as the regions for temperature are independently controlled), which is measured by the corresponding thermistor among the plurality of thermistors (as it related to the data sets obtained to convert power to a pore-determined temperature), and a set temperature of a substrate (as per the data set), which is mounted on the electrostatic chuck as a correction value, and control the supply of the electric power to the corresponding heater among the plurality of heaters based on the correction value [0023-0126].
In regards to Claim 21, Kaneko teaches the correction value is determined by a set temperature of a lower electrode which is provided in the conductive base, (as per the formation of the data set, [0023-0126]).
In regards to Claim 22, Kaneko teaches the correction value is determined by a difference between the set temperature of the substrate and a set temperature of a lower electrode which is provided in the conductive base (as per the formation of the data set, [0023-0126]).
In regards to Claim 23, Kaneko teaches the heater controller is configured to hold a plurality of correction values corresponding to each of the plurality of divided regions (as per the formation of the data set, [0023-0126]).
In regards to Claim 24, Kaneko teaches each of the plurality of voltage measurers is provided in each of the plurality of thermistors, as shown in Fig. 8.
In regards to Claim 25, Kaneko teaches the RF filter is provided in common for the plurality of heaters, as shown in F21, F22 Fig. 8.
In regards to Claim 26, Kaneko teaches a flow path 22f [0040] for circulating a refrigerant is formed in the conductive base, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 27, Kaneko teaches the control board is supported by the lower electrode and the cover plate of the conductive base via a plurality of spacers in the form of wires 74.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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 at (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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716