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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I-Figure 2 (claims 1-2, 5-6, and 15-19) in the reply filed on April 3, 2024 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I-Figure 4 A (claims 1-2, 5-6, and 15-19) in the reply filed on September 11, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim recites the term “electrostatic chunk”; however, it should be –electrostatic chuck--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu et al. (U.S. 2010/0243606) in view of Genetti et al. (U.S. 2017/0117172).
Referring to Figures 2 & 20 and paragraphs [0055]-[0061], [0134]-[0135]), Koshimizu et al. discloses a mounting base on which a substrate to be subjected to a predetermined processing is placed, the mounting base comprising: an electrostatic chuck 38, 46 configured to electrostatically attract and hold the substrate (Figs. 2, 20, par.[0057],[0059]); a first edge ring 36A that is transferrable and placed to surround the substrate (Fig. 20, par.[0134]); a second edge ring 36B fixed to surround the first edge ring (Fig. 20, par.[0134]); a first electrode 46A for electrostatic attraction of the first edge ring, the first electrode being disposed at a position facing the first edge ring in the electrostatic chuck (Fig. 20, pars.[0134]-[0135]); and a second electrode 46B for electrostatic attraction of the second edge ring, the second edge ring being disposed at a position facing the second edge ring in the electrostatic chuck (Fig. 20, pars.[0134]-[0135]).
Koshimizu et al. is silent on a lifter pin configured to raise or lower the first edge ring.
Referring to Figures 4, 6, 8-9 and paragraphs [0077]-[0080], Genetti et al. teach a mounting base wherein a lifter pin 202 is configured to raise or lower a first edge ring 208 in order to remove and replace the edge ring without needing to break vacuum and ultimately reduce processing time (par.[0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. a lifter pin configured to raise or lower the first edge ring as taught by Genetti et al. in order to remove and replace the edge ring without needing to break vacuum and ultimately reduce processing time. The modified apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. would yield a lifter pin configured to raise or lower the first edge ring.
With respect to wherein in a case where the first edge ring is transferred, the electrostatic attraction of the first edge ring is released while maintaining the electrostatic attraction of the second edge ring that is not to be transferred, Genetti et al. teach a controller 220 is used to transfer the first edge ring 202 (par.[0087]) and Koshimizu et al. teach a controller 66 is used to independently operate the electrodes 46A, 46B used for the electrostatic attraction of the first and second edge ring (Koshimizu-pars.[0069],[0134]-[0135]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. such that the first edge ring is transferred, the electrostatic attraction of the first edge ring is released while maintaining the electrostatic attraction of the second edge ring that is not to be transferred.
With respect to claim 2, Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. further includes wherein a diameter of the first edge ring 208 is smaller than a width of a loading/unloading port through which the substrate is transferred, the loading/unloading port being formed at a processing chamber 112 including the mounting base therein (Genetti et al. Figs. 3-4, 5B, 6, 8, pars.[0076]-[0078], i.e. first edge ring 208 is transferred through loading/unloading port process chamber 112).
With respect to claim 6, substrate processing device of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. for performing predetermined processing on a substrate placed on a mounting base in a processing chamber, the substrate processing device further comprising: the mounting base 12 on which the substrate W is placed (Koshimizu et al.-Fig 2., par.[0055]).
Claim(s) 5 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu et al. (U.S. 2010/0243606) in view of Genetti et al. (U.S. 2017/0117172) as applied to claims 1-2 and 6 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (U.S. 2016/0189994).
The teaching of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. have been discussed above.
Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. fail to teach wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is divided into a plurality of partial electrodes, and separate voltages are applied to the partial electrodes of each of the first electrode and the second electrode.
Referring to Figures 2, 9 and paragraphs [0068]-[0071], Sasaki et al. teach a mounting base wherein each of the first electrode 25d-1 and the second electrode 25d-2 is divided into a plurality of partial electrodes, and separate voltages are applied to the partial electrodes of each of the first electrode and the second electrode. By controlling the voltages to the electrodes, the edge ring is securely held and misalignment between the edge ring and electrostatic chuck is prevented. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the mounting base of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. with wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is divided into a plurality of partial electrodes, and separate voltages are applied to the partial electrodes of each of the first electrode and the second electrode as taught by Sasaki et al. since it is an alternate arrangement to securely hold the first and second edge rings and misalignment between the edge ring and electrostatic chuck is prevented.
With respect to claim 20, the mounting base of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. and Sasaki et al. further includes wherein a first voltage is applied at least one of the partial electrodes of the first electrode, and a second voltage is applied to another partial electrode of the first electrode which is different from the at least one of the partial electrodes of the first electrode, wherein the second voltage has same polarity and different magnitude for generating potential difference, with the first voltage ((Fig. 9, pars. [0068],[0071], Note. Koshimizu et al. teach the concept of applying different voltages to partial electrodes which can be applied to the first and second electrodes).
With respect to claim 21, the mounting base of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. and Sasaki et al. further includes wherein a third voltage is applied at least one of the partial electrodes of the second electrode 25, and a fourth voltage is applied to another partial electrode of the second electrode which is different from the at least one of the partial electrodes of the second electrode, wherein the fourth voltage has same polarity and different magnitude for generating potential difference, with the third voltage (Fig. 9, pars. [0068],[0071], Note. Koshimizu et al. teach the concept of applying different voltages to partial electrodes which can be applied to the first and second electrodes).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genetti et al. (U.S. 2017/0117172) in view of Koshimizu et al. (U.S. 2010/0243606).
Referring to Figures 3A, 5B, 8-9, paragraphs [0077]-[0098], Genetti et al. discloses substrate processing device, comprising: a processing chamber 112; a mounting base main body 230 positioned within the processing chamber (Fig. 5B, par.[0086]); an electrostatic chuck (Fig. 5B, par.[0086]), the electrostatic chuck including a substrate mounting base for placing a substrate 150 and a ring mounting base on which a ring 208 is disposed to surround the substrate (Fig. 5B); a first ring 208 that is transferrable and disposed on the ring mounting base (Fig. 4, pars.[0077],[0087]); a second ring 232 fixedly arranged around the first ring (Fig. 4, par.[0077]); and a lift 221 for the first ring (par.[0087]).
Genetti et al. is silent on an electrostatic chuck disposed on an upper surface of the mounting base main body.
Referring to Figure 2 and paragraph [0057], Koshimizu et al. teach a mounting base wherein an electrostatic chuck 38 disposed on an upper surface of the mounting base main body 12 as a conventional and suitable arrangement for configuring an electrostatic chuck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to alternatively modify the mounting base of Genetti et al. such that an electrostatic chuck disposed on an upper surface of the mounting base main body as taught by Koshimizu et al. as art-recognized equivalent means for configuring an electrostatic chuck. Additionally, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). The resulting apparatus of Genetti et al. in view of Koshimizu et al. would yield an electrostatic chuck disposed on an upper surface of the mounting base main body.
Genetti et al. is silent on a first ring and second ring disposed on the ring mounting base by electrostatic attraction.
Referring to Figure 20 and paragraphs [0134]-[0135], Koshimizu et al. teach a first ring 36A and second ring 36B disposed on a ring mounting base by electrostatic attraction 46A, 46B in order to hold the first and second rings. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Genetti et al. with a first ring and second ring disposed on the ring mounting base by electrostatic attraction as taught by Koshimizu et al. in order to hold the first and second rings. The resulting apparatus of Genetti et al. in view of Koshimizu et al. would yield a first ring that is transferrable and disposed on the ring mounting base.by electrostatic attraction; a second ring fixedly arranged around the first ring, the second ring being disposed on the ring mounting base by electrostatic attraction.
Genetti et al. is silent on wherein a diameter of the second ring is larger than a width of a loading/unloading port through which the substrate is transferred; however, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed second ring and a second ring having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art second ring, the claimed ring was not patentably distinct from the prior art second ring (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 wherein in a case where the first edge ring is transferred, the electrostatic attraction of the first edge ring is released while maintaining the electrostatic attraction of the second edge ring that is not to be transferred, Genetti et al. teach a controller 220 is used to transfer the first edge ring 202 (par.[0087]) and Koshimizu et al. teach a controller 66 is used to independently operate the electrodes 46A, 46B used for the electrostatic attraction of the first and second edge ring (Koshimizu et al.-pars.[0069],[0134]-[0135]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. such that the first edge ring is transferred, the electrostatic attraction of the first edge ring is released while maintaining the electrostatic attraction of the second edge ring that is not to be transferred.
With respect to claim 16, the substrate processing device of Genetti et al. in view of Koshimizu et al. further includes wherein a diameter of the first ring 208 is smaller than the width of the loading/unloading port (Genetti et al. Figs. 3-4, 5B, 6, 8, pars.[0076]-[0078], i.e. first edge ring 208 is transferred through loading/unloading port process chamber 112).
With respect to claim 18, the substrate processing device of Genetti et al. in view of Koshimizu et al. further includes wherein the electrostatic chuck is disposed on the upper surface of the mounting base main body and includes the substrate mounting base and the ring mounting base on which the first ring and the second ring are disposed, the first ring being transferrable and surrounding the substrate, the second ring being fixedly arranged around the first ring; and, the substrate processing device further comprises controller 220, and the controller is configured to move the first ring 208 to a position above the ring mounting base, and lower, by the lift 221, the first ring on the ring mounting base (Genetti et al.-Figs. 3, 5B, pars.[0074]-[0079], [0082], [0087]).
With respect to claims 17 and 19, Genetti et al. fail to teach an attraction electrode disposed at, at least one of a position facing the first ring or a position facing the second ring within the electrostatic chuck.
Referring to Figure 2 and paragraph [0060], Koshimizu et al. teach a mounting base wherein an attraction electrode 46b disposed at, at least one of a position facing the first ring 36 or a position facing the second ring within the electrostatic chuck 46 in order to securely hold the first ring on the electrostatic chuck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the mounting base of Genetti et al. to include an attraction electrode disposed at, at least one of a position facing the first ring or a position facing the second ring within the electrostatic chuck since it is a conventionally known means to securely hold the first ring on the electrostatic chuck. The resulting apparatus of Genetti et al. in view of Koshimizu et al. would yield an attraction electrode disposed at, at least one of a position facing the first ring or a position facing the second ring within the electrostatic chuck.
With respect to claim 19, the substrate processing device of Genetti et al. in view of Koshimizu et al. further comprising: a first attraction electrode 46A disposed at a position facing the first ring 36A within the electrostatic chuck 46; and a second attraction electrode 46B disposed at a position facing the second ring 36B within the electrostatic chuck 46 (Koshimizu et al.-Figure 20 and paragraphs [0134]-[0135]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Koshimizu is silent as to providing electrodes for independently electrostatically attracting and holding the inner focus ring and the outer focus ring, respectively.
However, Figure 20 and paragraphs [0066],[0134]-[0135] indicated that the electrodes 46A, 46B for electrostatically attracting and holding are operated independently by the voltage applying units 40A, 40B. Additionally, the controller 66 controls the switches 42A, 42B for turning the voltage applying units on and off. Therefore, the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Applicant has argued that Genetti is silent as to providing electrodes for independently electrostatically attracting and holding each one of two edge rings.
However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated above, Koshimizu et al. disclose independently electrostatically attracting and holding each one of two edge rings. Genetti was simply applied for lifting and transferring the first edge ring 208 (par.[0077],[0087]). Therefore, the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Applicant has argued that Sasaki fails to disclose independently controlling the electrostatic attraction of two physically divided edge rings.
However, claim 1 fails to require independently controlling the electrostatic attraction of two physically divided edge rings. Newly amended claim 1 limitation requires “wherein in a case where the first edge ring is transferred, the electrostatic attraction of the first edge ring is released while maintaining the electrostatic attraction of the second edge ring that is not to be transferred”. As stated above, Genetti et al. teach a controller 220 is used to transfer the first edge ring (par.[0087]). Koshimizu et al. disclose a controller 66 is used to independently operate the electrodes 46A,46B for the electrostatic attraction of the first and second edge ring by using separate voltage applying units 40A, 40B (Fig 20,[0134]-[0135]). Additionally, the controller 66 controls the switches 42A, 42B to turn on and off the voltage applying unit (pars.[0069]). Hence, the resulting apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. would yield wherein in a case where the first edge ring is transferred, the electrostatic attraction of the first edge ring is released while maintaining the electrostatic attraction of the second edge ring that is not to be transferred.
Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. has the structural components of lift pin 202 for the first edge ring 208 (Genetti et al.-Fig. 4), a first edge ring 46A with a first electrode for electrostatic chucking (Koshimizu et al.-Fig. 20), a second edge ring 46B with a second electrode for electrostatic chucking (Koshimizu et al.-Fig. 20), and a means 42A, 42B, 66 to adjust the electrostatic attraction for each of the first and second edge rings (Koshimizu et al.-Fig. 20). Therefore, the apparatus of Koshimizu et al. in view of Genetti et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasaki et al.’275 teach a mounting base using a first and second electrode for electrostatic attraction of edge rings.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716