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 statement filed 3 March 2025 fails to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the lined-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite “an electro-optic (EO) sensor”, rather than “an electro-optic sensing element”, which was previously interpreted as a crystal. However, the term “sensor”, is considered a recitation broader than what is originally disclosed (“e.g. a crystal”) at para.47 of the disclosure. Also, keeping in mind that “a sensor” and “a fiber optic electric field sensor” have already been used in the claim to define the feature at issue, it is unclear what this interpretation is meant to include beyond what is disclosed. Therefore, in order to expedite examination, the claim limitation continues to be interpreted as quartz (and equivalents thereto) for providing the claimed function.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
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 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0081564 to Moroz et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0247492 to Jing et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0041083 to Kadogawa et al.
Regarding claim 1: Moroz et al. disclose a plasma processing system substantially as claimed and comprising: a substrate support (see, e.g., Figs. 1-8B, 20) disposed within a processing volume (inside 10) of the plasma processing system, the substrate support comprising: a substrate supporting surface (top horizontal surface of 20); and a dielectric layer (134) disposed between a first electrode (132) and the substrate supporting surface; and at least one sensor (50, multiple structures) disposed a first distance from the substrate supporting surface and within the substrate support, wherein the first electrode is disposed a second distance from the substrate supporting surface; the first distance and the second distance are measured in a first direction; the first distance is less than the second distance; and the sensor is configured to detect an electric field strength or a voltage. Also see, e.g., paras. 45 and 49. Examiner notes that the sensor is disclosed at a plurality of distances as it includes a plurality of structures and extends vertically through the substrate support such that the inequality between the first distance and the second distance may be met depending on how you select the first distance and the second distance.
Moroz et al., however, fail to disclose the at least one sensor within the substrate support comprises a fiber optic electric field sensor that is configured to detect an electric field strength by use of an electro-optic (EO) effect sensing element/sensor/crystal.
In the art of semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and also concerned with accurate sensing of conditions within the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, Jing et al. disclose providing at least one sensor within a substrate support (32) and the at least one sensor comprises a fiber optic sensor that is configured for the purpose of providing a sensor potentially communicating across RF hot and RF cold regions that is immune to RF interference (see, e.g., abstract and paras. 46-47, 54-56, 63-64).
Additionally, in the art of semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and also concerned with accurate sensing of conditions within the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, Kadogawa et al. disclose use of an electrooptic (EO) sensing element (crystal) configured for detecting electric field strength in a semiconductor manufacturing system for the purposes of providing high frequency current and voltage with higher accuracy without being affected by electrical noises and detecting variations in the system which would not be detectable by simple, conventional monitoring (see, e.g., paras. 46)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Moroz et al., the at least one sensor within the substrate support and the at least one sensor comprises a fiber optic electric field sensor that is configured to detect an electric field strength by use of an electro-optic (EO) effect sensing element/sensor/crystal in order to provide a sensor potentially communicating across RF hot and RF cold regions that is immune to RF interference as taught by Jing et al. and in order to provide high frequency current and voltage with higher accuracy without being affected by electrical noises and detect variations in the system which would not be detectable by simple, conventional monitoring as taught by Kadogawa et al.
With respect to claim 2, in Moroz et al., the processing system may further comprise a first generator (72) coupled to a second electrode (70) for the plasma processing system, wherein the first generator is configured to generate a plasma within the processing volume.
With respect to claim 8, the first electrode is an electrostatic chucking electrode in Moroz et al. See, e.g., para. 44.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moroz et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0157042 to Van Zyl et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0069464 to Ye et al.
Modified Moroz et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, Moroz et al. discloses that the first generator is a radio frequency (RF) generator.
Moroz et al. fail to disclose the system further comprising: a pulse voltage (PV) waveform generator coupled to the first electrode; a direct current (DC) voltage supply (107) coupled to the first electrode; and a current source that is selectively coupled to the first electrode, wherein the first generator comprises a radio frequency. Nor does Moroz et al. disclose one or more filters between the pulse waveform generator and the first electrode and/or one or more filters disposed between the direct current voltage supply and the first electrode.
However, Van Zyl et al. disclose a plasma processing system comprising: a pulse voltage (PV) waveform generator (a first one of 112) coupled to the first electrode; a direct current (DC) voltage supply (107) coupled to the first electrode; and a current source (another one of 112) that is selectively coupled to the first electrode, wherein the plasma processing system arrangement including the pulse voltage waveform generator, direct current voltage supply and current source is provided for the purpose of, inter alia, providing an arrangement capable achieving desired plasma density and desired control over the distribution of ion energies (also see, e.g., abstract, paras. 31-35, 75).
Additionally, respect to claim 10, Van Zyl et al. disclose a controller (Fig. 1, 116; also see, Figs. 13-15 and paras. 35, 71-83) having a processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions that cause the system of modified Moroz et al. to: apply a first voltage waveform to the first electrode by use of a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform generator (a first one of 112 in Van Zyl et al.); measure the strength of the electric filed over time using the sensor (of Moroz et al.); and after a pulse voltage is generated by the pulse voltage, alter a current applied to the first electrode by a current source (another one of 112 in Van Zyl et al.) that is electrically coupled to the first electrode.
Also, Ye et al. disclose providing filters between power sources and voltage supplies connected to a plasma volume for the purpose of blocking RF energy present in the processing volume from reaching the power sources and voltage supplies (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, paras. 35, 39, 46-48 and 52-56).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the plasma processing system of modified Moroz et al. further comprising an arrangement including the pulse voltage waveform generator, direct current voltage supply and current source in order to provide an arrangement capable achieving desired plasma density and desired control over the distribution of ion energies as taught by Van Zyl et al. and to have provided modified Moroz et al. with one or more filters between the pulse waveform generator and the first electrode and one or more filters disposed between the direct current voltage supply and the first electrode in order to block RF energy present in the processing volume from reaching the power sources and voltage supplies as taught by Ye et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moroz et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0090338 to Koh et al.
Modified Moroz et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Moroz et al. fail to disclose the second distance may be less than or equal to 5 mm.
Koh et al. disclose a second distance represented by a distance between an electrostatic chucking electrode and a surface of a substrate support that is less than or equal to 5mm for the purpose of securely holding a substrate during processing (see, e.g., para. 22).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the second distance less than or equal to 5mm in order to securely hold a substrate during processing as taught by Koh et al.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0081564 to Moroz et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0157042 to Van Zyl et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0247492 to Jing et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0041083 to Kadogawa et al.
Regarding claim 11: Moroz et al. discloses a plasma processing system substantially as claimed and comprising: substrate support (see, e.g., Figs. 1-8B, 20) disposed within a processing volume (inside 10) of the plasma processing system, the substrate support comprising: a substrate supporting surface (top horizontal surface of 20); a first electrode (132) disposed in the substrate support at a first distance from the substrate supporting surface; and a dielectric layer (134) disposed between the substrate supporting surface and the first electrode; and a sensor (50) disposed a second distance from the substrate supporting surface, wherein the first distance and the second distance are measured in a first direction; the second distance is less than the first distance; and the sensor is configured to detect either an electric field strength or a voltage. Also see, e.g., paras. 45 and 49. Examiner notes that the sensor is disclosed at a plurality of distances as it includes a plurality of structures and extends vertically through the substrate support such that the inequality between the first distance and the second distance may be met depending on how you select the first distance and the second distance.
Additionally, Moroz et al. disclose a radio frequency (RF) waveform generator (72) coupled to a second electrode (70) of the plasma processing system, wherein the radio frequency waveform generator is configured to generate a plasma within the processing volume.
However, Moroz et al. fail to disclose the system further comprising: a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform generator coupled to the first electrode.
However, Van Zyl et al. disclose a plasma processing system comprising: a pulse voltage (PV) waveform generator (a first one of 112) coupled to the first electrode; a direct current (DC) voltage supply (107) coupled to the first electrode; and a current source (another one of 112) that is selectively coupled to the first electrode, wherein the plasma processing system arrangement including the pulse voltage waveform generator, direct current voltage supply and current source is provided for the purpose of, inter alia, providing an arrangement capable achieving desired plasma density and desired control over the distribution of ion energies (also see, e.g., abstract, paras. 31-35, 75).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the plasma processing system of Moroz et al. further comprising an arrangement including the pulse voltage waveform generator, direct current voltage supply and current source in order to provide, inter alia, an arrangement capable achieving desired plasma density and desired control over the distribution of ion energies as taught by Van Zyl et al.
Moroz et al., however, fail to disclose the at least one sensor within the substrate support comprises a fiber optic electric field sensor that is configured to detect an electric field strength by use of an electro-optic (EO) effect sensing element/sensor/crystal.
In the art of semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and also concerned with accurate sensing of conditions within the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, Jing et al. disclose providing at least one sensor within a substrate support (32) and the at least one sensor comprises a fiber optic sensor that is configured for the purpose of providing a sensor potentially communicating across RF hot and RF cold regions that is immune to RF interference (see, e.g., abstract and paras. 46-47, 54-56, 63-64).
Additonally, within the art of semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and also concerned with accurate sensing of conditions within the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, Kadogawa et al. disclose use of an electrooptic (EO) sensing element (crystal) configured for detecting electric field strength a semiconductor manufacturing system for the purposes of providing high frequency current and voltage with higher accuracy without being affected by electrical noises and detecting variations in the system which would not be detectable by simple, conventional monitoring (see, e.g., paras. 46)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Moroz et al., the at least one sensor within the substrate support and the at least one sensor comprises a fiber optic electric field sensor that is configured to detect an electric field strength by use of an electro-optic (EO) effect sensing element/sensor/crystal in order to provide a sensor potentially communicating across RF hot and RF cold regions that is immune to RF interference as taught by Jing et al. and in order to provide high frequency current and voltage with higher accuracy without being affected by electrical noises and detect variations in the system which would not be detectable by simple, conventional monitoring as taught by Kadogawa et al.
With respect to claim 17, Van Zyl et al. disclose a controller (Fig. 1, 116; also see, Figs. 13-15 and paras. 35, 71-83) having a processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions that cause the system of modified Moroz et al. to: apply a first voltage waveform to the first electrode by use of a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform generator (a first one of 112 in Van Zyl et al.); measure the strength of the electric filed over time using the sensor (of Moroz et al.); and after a pulse voltage is generated by the pulse voltage, alter a current applied to the first electrode by a current source (another one of 112 in Van Zyl et al.) that is electrically coupled to the first electrode based on a strength of the electric field.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moroz et al. as applied to claims 11 and 17 and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0069464 to Ye et al.
Modified Moroz et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, Van Zyl et al. disclose a direct current voltage source (107) coupled to the first electrode.
However, modified Moroz et al. fails to disclose one or more filters to electrically isolate a DC voltage waveform from a PV waveform.
Ye et al. disclose providing filters between power sources and voltage supplies connected to a plasma volume for the purpose of blocking RF energy present in the processing volume from reaching the power sources and voltage supplies (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, paras. 35, 39, 46-48 and 52-56).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided modified Moroz et al with one or more filters between the pulse waveform generator and the first electrode and one or more filters in order to block RF energy present in the processing volume from reaching the power sources and voltage supplies as taught by Ye et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 8-12 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has argued that Kadogawa fails to disclose use the Pockels cell or the voltage sensor to detect electric field strength, such that there is no motivation to include at least one sensor comprising a fiber optic electric field sensor that is configured to detect electric field strength by use of an electro-optic (EO) field sensor.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). In particular, it is noted that Moroz et al. has been relied upon as a sensor for detecting electric field strength (see above). Further, Jing et al. disclose providing at least one sensor within a substrate support and the at least one sensor comprises a fiber optic sensor that is configured for the purpose of providing a sensor potentially communicating across RF hot and RF cold regions that is immune to RF interference (see above). Finally, Kadogawa is relied upon as disclosing a electro-optic type of sensing element capable of detecting electric field strength and having the added advantage of providing high frequency current and voltage with higher accuracy without being affected by electrical noises and detect variations in the system which would not be detectable by simple, conventional monitoring. For these reasons, the motivation for combination is considered properly provided as set forth in the above rejections and the invention is considered obvious over the relied upon prior art as set forth in the above rejections.
Conclusion
At the time of the issuing the present office action, no additional prior art of particular relevance requiring citation herein was located.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716