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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 11 have been amended
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 5-7, 10, and 16-18 have been withdrawn
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20150170977) in view of Lackner et al. (US 20080064184), Kato et al. (US 20160240425), Dickinson et al. (US 20030232512), and Tetsuka et al. (US 20070044716), with Guarini et al. (US 20140273517), Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026, Tabata et al. (US 20140123897), and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Singh teaches a substrate supporting apparatus (substrate support assembly 100) that supports a substrate in a processing container of a substrate processing apparatus, the substrate supporting apparatus comprising: a mounting plate (dielectric layer 120) that includes ceramics (layer 120 is a dielectric layer; the support may comprise a ceramic substrate holder) and that has a mounting surface (upper surface of dielectric layer 120) on which the substrate is to be mounted, a power supply plate (ESC electrode 124) that is built in the mounting plate and electrostatically attracts the substrate to the mounting plate (electrode 124 is an electrostatic clamping electrode) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0015, 0044].
Singh does not specifically disclose the mounting plate having a plurality of recessed portions formed therein, and each of the plurality of recessed portions having an opening coplanar with the mounting surface; a plurality of protruding portions each of which internally includes an electrically conductive member and is provided in a respective one of the plurality of recessed portions, the plurality of protruding portions being arranged on at least a central region and outer edge region of the mounting plate, and each of the plurality of protruding portions protruding from the mounting surface via the opening of its respective recessed portion; and a plurality of elastic members each of which is embedded in the mounting plate to correspond to a respective one of the plurality of protruding portions, the plurality of elastic members supporting the plurality of protruding portions while remaining below the mounting surface and the plurality of elastic members electrically connecting the power supply plate and the electrically conductive members included in the plurality of protruding portions to each other.
Lackner teaches the mounting plate having a plurality of recessed portions (the spaces that the springs 64 are disposed in) formed therein, and each of the plurality of recessed portions having an opening coplanar with the mounting surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the recesses that the springs 64 are disposed in have openings that are coplanar with the mounting surface of substrate holder 2); a plurality of protruding portions (contact needles 66) each of which internally includes an electrically conductive member respectively (contact needles 66 provide electrical contact) and is provided in a respective one of the plurality of recessed portions (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the contact needles are disposed in respective recesses), the plurality of protruding portions being arranged on at least a central region (middle region of substrate holder 1) and outer edge region (outer region of substrate holder 1) of the mounting plate, and each of the plurality of protruding portions protruding from the mounting surface via the opening of its respective recessed portion (as evidenced by Fig. 4, needles 66 protrude from the surface of substrate holder 2); and a plurality of elastic members (springs 64) each of which is embedded in the mounting plate to correspond to a respective one of the plurality of protruding portions, the plurality of elastic members supporting the plurality of protruding portions (springs 64 support contact needles 66) while remaining below the mounting surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the springs 64 are below the mounting surface of substrate holder 2) and the plurality of elastic members electrically connecting the power supply plate and the electrically conductive members included in the plurality of protruding portions to each other (springs 64 are in contact with the chuck body 2; contact needles 66 provide electrical contact) [Fig. 4 & 0045, 0062-0063].
Singh and Lackner are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Singh to have conductive protrusions with springs, as in Lackner, to prevent bending of thinned wafer areas, to prevent drooping under external pressure, and to help maintain upward pressure [Lackner - 0028, 0055, 0062].
Modified Singh does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of elastic members includes: a base material made of ceramics.
Kato teaches wherein each of the plurality of elastic members includes: a base material made of ceramics (spring 90 may be made of ceramics) [Fig. 10 & 0063].
Modified Singh and Kato are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastic member of Modified Singh to comprise of a base material made of a ceramic, as in Kato, since such is a suitable material for a spring [Kato - 0063]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Singh (Singh modified by Lackner and Kato) does not specifically disclose a coating film coated on the base material.
Dickinson teaches a coating film coated on the base material (surfaces of a processing chamber exposed to a processing medium may be coated or plates with a corrosion-resistant material such as nickel or chromium) [Fig. 3A & 0066].
Modified Singh and Dickinson are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastic members of Modified Singh to be coated with a film, as in Dickinson, to improve corrosion resistance [Dickinson - 0066]. It is noted that Dickinson discloses that it is preferable to have all surfaces exposed to a processing medium be corrosion resistant [Dickinson - 0047-0048, 0066]. Otsuki et al. (US 20010003271) also discloses that it would be beneficial to coat exposed surfaces of a processing chamber with a corrosion resistant film in order to increase service life [Otsuki - 0059]. Guarini et al. (US 20140273517) and Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026) and also disclose that it would be beneficial to coat exposed surfaces of a processing chamber with a corrosion resistant film [Guarini - 0040; Firouzdor - 0010, 0022-0023].
Modified Singh (Singh modified by Lackner, Kato, and Dickinson) does not specifically disclose a coating film made of tungsten or platinum.
Tetsuka teaches a coating film made of tungsten or platinum (it is possible to cover the surface composed of stainless steel or aluminum alloy with a polymer coating or a corrosion-resistant metal plating such as gold or platinum) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0050].
Modified Singh and Tetsuka are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coating film of Modified Singh to be platinum, since Tetsuka discloses that such is a suitable material for a corrosion-resistant layer [Tetsuka - 0089]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Tabata et al. (US 20140123897) and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) also disclose platinum coatings as corrosion-resistant [Tabata - 0089; Wang - 0157].
Furthermore the claim limitation “biasing the protruding portions through the mounting surface via their respective openings,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It is noted that the combination of references would disclose this limitation since the springs would be coated by a conductive film and would therefore be capable of biasing.
Regarding Claim 2:
Singh teaches an electric heating plate (heater layer 123 comprises of thermoelectric decides), below the mounting plate (heater layer 123 is below dielectric layer 120), that heats the substrate [Fig. 3 & 0044-0045].
Furthermore, the limitations “that heats the substrate to a temperature of at least 650 degrees Celsius” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that a heater is capable is heating the substrate to any desired temperature.
Regarding Claim 3:
Singh does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of protruding portions are arranged on an entire mounting surface of the mounting plate.
Lackner teaches wherein the plurality of protruding portions is arranged on an entire mounting surface of the mounting plate (the number of needles 66 can be adapted and varied as required; the number of needles can be adjusted to cover the entire mounting surface so as to properly support a wafer) [Fig. 4 & 0063].
Singh and Lackner are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Singh to have conductive protrusions with springs, as in Lackner, to prevent bending of thinned wafer areas, to prevent drooping under external pressure, and to help maintain upward pressure [Lackner - 0028, 0055, 0062].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20150170977) in view of Lackner et al. (US 20080064184), Kato et al. (US 20160240425), Dickinson et al. (US 20030232512), and Tetsuka et al. (US 20070044716), with Guarini et al. (US 20140273517), Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026, Tabata et al. (US 20140123897), and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (US 20090284894) and Hawkins et al. (US 20130109192).
The limitations of claims 1-3 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Singh does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of protruding portions have columnar shapes.
Although Cook does not specifically disclose "wherein the plurality of protruding portions have columnar shapes," Cook does disclose that protrusion shape is a result effective variable. Specifically, cook discloses that the shape of a protrusion can be chosen to reduce particles due to non-uniform loading of the substrate on the protrusions [Cook - 0069]. Modified Singh and Cook are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art find an optimum shape for a protrusion in order to achieve a desired particle generation and substrate loading profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Singh (modified Singh further modified by Cook) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of protruding portions are arranged on the mounting surface radially or in a grid, or have annular shapes, and are arranged on the mounting surface concentrically.
Hawkins teaches wherein the plurality of protruding portions are arranged on the mounting surface radially or in a grid, or have annular shapes, and are arranged on the mounting surface concentrically (protrusions 64 are arranged in a grid pattern) [Fig. 4 & 0030].
Modified Singh and Hawkins are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protrusions of modified Singh to be arranged in a grid, as in Hawkins, to provide evenly spaced protrusions, thereby providing consistency throughout a wafer and from wafer to wafer [Hawkins - 0030].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 201501709779) in view of Lackner et al. (US 20080064184), Kato et al. (US 20160240425), Dickinson et al. (US 20030232512), and Tetsuka et al. (US 20070044716), with Guarini et al. (US 20140273517), Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026, Tabata et al. (US 20140123897), and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 8:
Singh teaches a substrate supporting apparatus (substrate support assembly 100) that supports a substrate in a processing container of a substrate processing apparatus, the substrate supporting apparatus comprising: a mounting plate (dielectric layer 120) that includes ceramics (layer 120 is a dielectric layer; the support may comprise a ceramic substrate holder) and that has a mounting surface (upper surface of dielectric layer 120) on which the substrate is to be mounted [Fig. 1, 3 & 0015, 0044].
Singh does not specifically disclose the mounting plate having a plurality of recessed portions formed therein, and each of the plurality of recessed portions having an opening coplanar with the mounting surface; a plurality of protruding portions each of which internally includes an electrically conductive or thermally conductive member and is provided in a respective one of the plurality of recessed portions, the plurality of protruding portions being arranged on at least a central region and outer edge region of the mounting plate, and each of the plurality of protruding portions protruding from the mounting surface via the opening of its respective recessed portion; and a plurality of elastic members each of which is embedded in the mounting plate to correspond to a respective one of the plurality of protruding portions, the plurality of elastic members supporting the plurality of protruding portions while remaining below the mounting surface.
Lackner teaches the mounting plate having a plurality of recessed portions (the spaces that the springs 64 are disposed in) formed therein, and each of the plurality of recessed portions having an opening coplanar with the mounting surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the recesses that the springs 64 are disposed in have openings that are coplanar with the mounting surface of substrate holder 2); a plurality of protruding portions (contact needles 66) each of which internally includes an electrically conductive or thermally conductive member (contact needles 66 provide electrical contact) and is provided in a respective one of the plurality of recessed portions (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the contact needles are disposed in respective recesses), the plurality of protruding portions being arranged on at least a central region (middle region of substrate holder 1) and outer edge region (outer region of substrate holder 1) of the mounting plate, and each of the plurality of protruding portions protruding from the mounting surface via the opening of its respective recessed portion (as evidenced by Fig. 4, needles 66 protrude from the surface of substrate holder 2); and a plurality of elastic members (springs 64) each of which is embedded in the mounting plate to correspond to a respective one of the plurality of protruding portions, the plurality of elastic members supporting the plurality of protruding portions (springs 64 support contact needles 66) while remaining below the mounting surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the springs 64 are below the mounting surface of substrate holder 2) [Fig. 4 & 0045, 0062-0063].
Singh and Lackner are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Singh to have conductive protrusions with springs, as in Lackner, to prevent bending of thinned wafer areas, to prevent drooping under external pressure, and to help maintain upward pressure [Lackner - 0028, 0055, 0062].
Modified Singh does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of elastic members includes: a base material made of ceramics.
Kato teaches wherein each of the plurality of elastic members includes: a base material made of ceramics (spring 90 may be made of ceramics) [Fig. 10 & 0063].
Modified Singh and Kato are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastic member of Modified Singh to comprise of a base material made of a ceramic, as in Kato, since such is a suitable material for a spring [Kato - 0063]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Singh (Singh modified by Lackner and Kato) does not specifically disclose a coating film coated on the base material.
Dickinson teaches a coating film coated on the base material (surfaces of a processing chamber exposed to a processing medium may be coated or plates with a corrosion-resistant material such as nickel or chromium) [Fig. 3A & 0066].
Modified Singh and Dickinson are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastic members of Modified Singh to be coated with a film, as in Dickinson, to improve corrosion resistance [Dickinson - 0066]. It is noted that Dickinson discloses that it is preferable to have all surfaces exposed to a processing medium be corrosion resistant [Dickinson - 0047-0048, 0066]. Otsuki et al. (US 20010003271) also discloses that it would be beneficial to coat exposed surfaces of a processing chamber with a corrosion resistant film in order to increase service life [Otsuki - 0059]. Guarini et al. (US 20140273517) and Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026) and also disclose that it would be beneficial to coat exposed surfaces of a processing chamber with a corrosion resistant film [Guarini - 0040; Firouzdor - 0010, 0022-0023].
Modified Singh (Singh modified by Lackner, Kato, and Dickinson) does not specifically disclose a coating film made of tungsten or platinum.
Tetsuka teaches a coating film made of tungsten or platinum (it is possible to cover the surface composed of stainless steel or aluminum alloy with a polymer coating or a corrosion-resistant metal plating such as gold or platinum) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0050].
Modified Singh and Tetsuka are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coating film of Modified Singh to be platinum, since Tetsuka discloses that such is a suitable material for a corrosion-resistant layer [Tetsuka - 0089]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Tabata et al. (US 20140123897) and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) also disclose platinum coatings as corrosion-resistant [Tabata - 0089; Wang - 0157].
Furthermore the claim limitation “biasing the protruding portions through the mounting surface via their respective openings,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It is noted that the combination of references would disclose this limitation since the springs would be coated by a conductive film and would therefore be capable of biasing.
Regarding Claim 9:
Singh teaches a power supply plate (ESC electrode 124) that is built in the mounting plate and electrostatically attracts the substrate to the mounting plate (electrode 124 is an electrostatic clamping electrode) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0015, 0044].
Singh does not specifically disclose wherein the electrically conductive or thermally conductive member is an electrically conductive member, and the plurality of elastic members electrically connect the power supply plate and the electrically conductive members included in the plurality of protruding portions to each other.
Lackner teaches wherein the electrically conductive or thermally conductive member is an electrically a conductive member (contact needles 66 provide electrical contact) [Fig. 4 & 0045, 0062-0063], the plurality of elastic members electrically connect the power supply plate and the electrically conductive members included in the plurality of protruding portions to each other (springs 64 are in contact with the chuck body 2, which can be made of a conductive material such as a metal; contact needles 66 provide electrical contact) [Fig. 4 & 0045, 0062-0063].
Singh and Lackner are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Singh to have conductive protrusions with springs, as in Lackner, to prevent bending of thinned wafer areas, to prevent drooping under external pressure, and to help maintain upward pressure [Lackner - 0028, 0055, 0062].
Claim(s) 11-12, 14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20150170977) in view of Lackner et al. (US 20080064184), Kato et al. (US 20160240425), Dickinson et al. (US 20030232512), and Tetsuka et al. (US 20070044716), with Guarini et al. (US 20140273517), Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026, Tabata et al. (US 20140123897), and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 11:
Singh teaches a substrate supporting apparatus (substrate support assembly 100) that supports a substrate in a processing container of a substrate processing apparatus, the substrate supporting apparatus comprising: a mounting plate (dielectric layer 120) that includes ceramics (layer 120 is a dielectric layer) and that has a mounting surface on which the substrate is to be mounted (upper surface of dielectric layer 120); the support may comprise a ceramic substrate holder) and has a mounting surface (upper surface of dielectric layer 120) on which the substrate is to be mounted; a power supply plate (ESC electrode 124) that is built in the mounting plate and electrostatically attracts the substrate to the mounting plate (electrode 124 is an electrostatic clamping electrode) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0015, 0044].
Singh does not specifically disclose the mounting plate having a plurality of recessed portions formed therein, and each of the plurality of recessed portions having an opening coplanar with the mounting surface; a plurality of protruding portions each of which internally includes an electrically conductive member and is provided in a respective one of the plurality of recessed portions, the plurality of protruding portions being arranged on at least a central region and outer edge region of the mounting plate, and each of the plurality of protruding portions protruding from the mounting surface via the opening of its respective recessed portion; and a plurality of elastic members each of which is embedded in the mounting plate to correspond to a respective one of the plurality of protruding portions, the plurality of elastic members supporting the plurality of protruding portions while remaining below the mounting surface.
Lackner teaches the mounting plate having a plurality of recessed portions (the spaces that the springs 64 are disposed in) formed therein, and each of the plurality of recessed portions having an opening coplanar with the mounting surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the recesses that the springs 64 are disposed in have openings that are coplanar with the mounting surface of substrate holder 2); a plurality of protruding portions (contact needles 66) each of which internally includes an electrically conductive or thermally conductive member (contact needles 66 provide electrical contact) and is provided in a respective one of the plurality of recessed portions (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the contact needles are disposed in respective recesses), the plurality of protruding portions being arranged on at least a central region (middle region of substrate holder 1) and outer edge region (outer region of substrate holder 1) of the mounting plate, and each of the plurality of protruding portions protruding from the mounting surface via the opening of its respective recessed portion (as evidenced by Fig. 4, needles 66 protrude from the surface of substrate holder 2); and a plurality of elastic members (springs 64) each of which is embedded in the mounting plate to correspond to a respective one of the plurality of protruding portions, the plurality of elastic members supporting the plurality of protruding portions (springs 64 support contact needles 66) while remaining below the mounting surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the springs 64 are below the mounting surface of substrate holder 2) [Fig. 4 & 0045, 0062-0063].
Singh and Lackner are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Singh to have conductive protrusions with springs, as in Lackner, to prevent bending of thinned wafer areas, to prevent drooping under external pressure, and to help maintain upward pressure [Lackner - 0028, 0055, 0062].
Modified Singh does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of elastic members includes: a base material made of ceramics.
Kato teaches wherein each of the plurality of elastic members includes: a base material made of ceramics (spring 90 may be made of ceramics) [Fig. 10 & 0063].
Modified Singh and Kato are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastic member of Modified Singh to comprise of a base material made of a ceramic, as in Kato, since such is a suitable material for a spring [Kato - 0063]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Singh (Singh modified by Lackner and Kato) does not specifically disclose a coating film coated on the base material.
Dickinson teaches a coating film coated on the base material (surfaces of a processing chamber exposed to a processing medium may be coated or plates with a corrosion-resistant material such as nickel or chromium) [Fig. 3A & 0066].
Modified Singh and Dickinson are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastic members of Modified Singh to be coated with a film, as in Dickinson, to improve corrosion resistance [Dickinson - 0066]. It is noted that Dickinson discloses that it is preferable to have all surfaces exposed to a processing medium be corrosion resistant [Dickinson - 0047-0048, 0066]. Otsuki et al. (US 20010003271) also discloses that it would be beneficial to coat exposed surfaces of a processing chamber with a corrosion resistant film in order to increase service life [Otsuki - 0059]. Guarini et al. (US 20140273517) and Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026) and also disclose that it would be beneficial to coat exposed surfaces of a processing chamber with a corrosion resistant film [Guarini - 0040; Firouzdor - 0010, 0022-0023].
Modified Singh (Singh modified by Lackner, Kato, and Dickinson) does not specifically disclose a coating film made of tungsten or platinum.
Tetsuka teaches a coating film made of tungsten or platinum (it is possible to cover the surface composed of stainless steel or aluminum alloy with a polymer coating or a corrosion-resistant metal plating such as gold or platinum) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0050].
Modified Singh and Tetsuka are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coating film of Modified Singh to be platinum, since Tetsuka discloses that such is a suitable material for a corrosion-resistant layer [Tetsuka - 0089]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. Tabata et al. (US 20140123897) and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) also disclose platinum coatings as corrosion-resistant [Tabata - 0089; Wang - 0157].
Furthermore the claim limitation “biasing the protruding portions through the mounting surface via their respective openings, and the plurality of elastic members electrically connecting the power supply plate and the electrically conductive members included in the plurality of protruding portions to each other,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It is noted that the combination of references would disclose this limitation since the springs would be coated by a conductive film and would therefore be capable of biasing and electrical connection.
Regarding Claim 12:
Singh teaches an electric heating plate (heater layer 123 comprises of thermoelectric decides), below the mounting plate (heater layer 123 is below dielectric layer 120), that heats the substrate [Fig. 3 & 0044-0045].
Furthermore, the limitations “that heats the substrate to a temperature of at least 650 degrees Celsius” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that a heater is capable is heating the substrate to any desired temperature.
Regarding Claim 14:
Singh does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of protruding portions are arranged on an entire mounting surface of the mounting plate.
Lackner teaches wherein the plurality of protruding portions is arranged on an entire mounting surface of the mounting plate (the number of needles 66 can be adapted and varied as required; the number of needles can be adjusted to cover the entire mounting surface so as to properly support a wafer) [Fig. 4 & 0063].
Singh and Lackner are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Singh to have conductive protrusions with springs, as in Lackner, to prevent bending of thinned wafer areas, to prevent drooping under external pressure, and to help maintain upward pressure [Lackner - 0028, 0055, 0062].
Regarding Claim 19:
Singh teaches wherein the substrate supporting apparatus is also a lower electrode (the support of Fig. 3 can be installed in the chamber of Fig. 1; the substrate support assembly of Fig. 1 is a lower electrode assembly 315), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises: an upper electrode (upper electrode assembly 325) that faces the substrate supporting apparatus; and a high-frequency power supply that supplies power to at least one of the lower electrode or the upper electrode to generate plasma (RF power supply 340 is coupled to the lower electrode to generate plasma) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0006, 0008, 0025, 0039, Claim 5].
Regarding Claim 20:
Singh teaches a pump that vacuums an atmosphere in the processing container (the bottom of chamber wall 304 includes a vacuum port 344 that can be coupled toa vacuum pump unit to exhaust gas) [Fig. 1 & 0026].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20150170977) ) in view of Lackner et al. (US 20080064184), Kato et al. (US 20160240425), Dickinson et al. (US 20030232512), and Tetsuka et al. (US 20070044716), with Guarini et al. (US 20140273517), Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026, Tabata et al. (US 20140123897), and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 11-12, 14, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20160035610).
The limitations of claims 11-12, 14, and 19-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Singh teaches a first power supply that supplies power to the power supply plate (ESC electrode 124 is powered through a clamping voltage supply line 111) [Singh - Fig. 3 & 0045]; a second power supply that supplies power to the electric heating plate (heater zones are powered through lines 107, 128, and 109) [Singh - Fig. 3 & 0045].
Modified Singh does not specifically disclose a control unit that controls the first and second power supplies, wherein the control unit controls to supply power to the electric heating plate from the second power supply to preheat the substrate in a state where the substrate is mounted on the mounting plate, and thereafter, to supply power to the power supply plate from the first power supply to attract the substrate to the mounting plate.
Park teaches and a control unit (control unit 250) that controls the first (ESC power source 240) and second (heater power source) power supplies, wherein the control unit controls to supply power to the electric heating plate from the second power supply to preheat the substrate in a state where the substrate is mounted on the mounting plate (control unit 250 controls heater power source 240 to adjust the heat generated by heater electrode 141, thereby controlling the temperature of a substrate 90) and thereafter, to supply power to the power supply plate from the first power supply to attract the substrate to the mounting plate. (control unit 250 controls the ESC power source 210, which powers clamping electrode 155 to attract substrate 90) [Fig. 1 & 0081, 0084].
Modified Singh and Park are analogous inventions in the field of substrate processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power sources of Modified Singh to include a control unit, as in Park, to be able to dynamically control temperature and chucking force, thereby helping the temperature of a wafer become more uniform [Park - 0084, 0117].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20150170977) in view of Lackner et al. (US 20080064184), Kato et al. (US 20160240425), Dickinson et al. (US 20030232512), and Tetsuka et al. (US 20070044716), with Guarini et al. (US 20140273517), Firouzdor et al. (US 20180337026, Tabata et al. (US 20140123897), and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 11-12, 14, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (US 20090284894) and Hawkins et al. (US 20130109192).
The limitations of claims 11-12, 14, and 19-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Singh does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of protruding portions have columnar shapes.
Although Cook does not specifically disclose "wherein the plurality of protruding portions have columnar shapes," Cook does disclose that protrusion shape is a result effective variable. Specifically, cook discloses that the shape of a protrusion can be chosen to reduce particles due to non-uniform loading of the substrate on the protrusions [Cook - 0069]. Modified Singh and Cook are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art find an optimum shape for a protrusion in order to achieve a desired particle generation and substrate loading profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Singh (modified Singh further modified by Cook) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of protruding portions are arranged on the mounting surface radially or in a grid, or have annular shapes, and are arranged on the mounting surface concentrically.
Hawkins teaches wherein the plurality of protruding portions are arranged on the mounting surface radially or in a grid, or have annular shapes, and are arranged on the mounting surface concentrically (protrusions 64 are arranged in a grid pattern) [Fig. 4 & 0030].
Modified Singh and Hawkins are analogous inventions in the field of substrate supporting apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protrusions of modified Singh to be arranged in a grid, as in Hawkins, to provide evenly spaced protrusions, thereby providing consistency throughout a wafer and from wafer to wafer [Hawkins - 0030].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/02/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-15, and 19-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Tetsuka et al. (US 20070044716), Tabata et al. (US 20140123897), and Wang et al. (US 20040104120) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718