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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1, 7 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Matsuda, in previously relied on references below.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 07/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Parimi is silent on teaching the suggested combination of features of amended claim 1, specifically that Parimi does not mention any attraction force.
In response to applicant's argument that Parimi does not mention any attraction force, 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.
Examiner notes that Parimi does mention attraction force in para. [0054, 0065], and that the added limitations in claim 1 are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, as all of the structure is taught by Parimi. Further, the fact that Parimi does not explicitly disclose another use for the structure, which reads on claim 1, does not mean another use or other concepts are not still intrinsic to the structure of Parimi and moreover, obvious. Additionally, Matsuda is relied upon to bolster Parimi’s structure and use.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the first region including a plurality of first recessed portions relative to the attraction surface" and “the second region including at least one second recessed portion relative to the attraction surface” in the claim. It is unclear “where” the first and/or second recessed portions are “relative to.” Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a contact portion arranged to contact the substrate when the substrate is attracted to the attraction surface" in the claim. The contact portion is a part of the attraction surface (as disclosed in the specification, para. [0018], PGPub), but the claim appears to imply contact portion is a different structure from the attraction surface. Examiner interprets the contact portion as a part of the attraction surface. Appropriate clarification 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.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200234932 to Parimi as evidenced by US 6648976 to Matsuda.
Claim 1: Parimi discloses a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: an electrostatic chuck (104 [pedestal], Fig. 5) configured to attract a workpiece (107 [substrate]), the electrostatic chuck (104) including: an attraction surface (210) configured to contact the workpiece (107), the attraction surface (210) including a first region (200 [central region]) extending across a central portion of the electrostatic chuck (104) and a second region (205 [peripheral region]), the second region (205) radially spaced from and surrounding the first region (Fig. 5, 2A);
and an internal electrode (128 [heater and/or electrode]), superimposed on each of the first region (200) and the second region (205) in a first direction (Fig. 5), the first direction intersecting the attraction surface (Fig. 5), the first region (200) including a plurality of first recessed portions (245 [recessed surface] where “portions” are interpreted as a plurality of areas of surfaces) relative to the attraction surface (210), the plurality of first recessed portions (245) extending across the central portion (200) of the electrostatic chuck (104), and superimposed on the internal electrode (128) in the first direction, each of the plurality of first recessed portions (245) having a first, common depth (depth of 245), and the second region (205) including at least one second recessed portion (240 [raised surfaces] where “portions” are interpreted as a plurality of areas of surfaces) relative to the attraction surface (210) and superimposed on the internal electrode (128) in the first direction,
the at least one second recessed portion (240) having a second depth (depth of 240), each of the plurality of first recessed portions (245) being deeper than each of the at least one second recessed portion (240, see Fig. 5, and para. [0047]), wherein each of the at least one second recessed portion (240) surrounding the plurality of at least one first recessed portion portions (245, Fig. 5).
It is noted that Parimi teaches different versions of the electrostatic chuck (see Fig. 5-8) for the purpose of improving temperature uniformity which enables more uniform heat transfer to a substrate (para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate optional design choice of the patterning of the electrostatic chuck with motivation to improve temperature uniformity which enables more uniform heat transfer to a substrate.
However Parimi does not explicitly disclose the intended use limitation of “an attraction force in the first region is less than an attraction force in the second region.” Yet, the two regions in the pedestal of Parimi structurally lend themselves to being different heights (para. [0046-0047]), Parimi teaches using an electrode to have the chuck function as an electrostatic chuck (para. [0027]), and as Applicant’s own specification states, the different heights of the two regions intrinsically have a different attraction force which reads on the claim limitation.
This is evidenced by Matsuda which teaches a chuck (3 [substrate holding stage], Fig. 1-2), where a region 3E (recessed part], Fig. 2) has a greater depth (300um) than a depth (100um) of another region 3D (recessed part), and where electrostatic attraction force decreases when the depth is over 100um for the purpose of having greater depths becoming hard to control by a simple increase/decrease in contact area between the substrate and the chuck (3/4, c. 11, 10-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the intrinsic properties of the structures of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda with motivation to have greater depths become hard to control by a simple increase/decrease in contact area between the substrate and the chuck.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the at least one second recessed portion (240, Fig. 5, Parimi) is an annular recessed portion (240) surrounding the first region (245).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the at least one second recessed portion (240, Fig. 5, Parimi) extends from an inner periphery (inner 205) to an outer periphery of the second region (outer 205, Fig. 5).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses further comprising a heater (128, Fig. 5, Parimi) configured to heat the electrostatic chuck (para. [0027] where 128 can be a heater and/or electrode).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the workpiece (107, Fig. 5, Parimi) includes a substrate (107), and the electrostatic chuck (104) is configured such that when it attracts the workpiece (107), a periphery of the substrate is superimposed on the second region (205) in the first direction (Fig. 5, 1).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the attraction surface (210, Fig. 5, Parimi) is formed of a ceramic material (para. [0008]).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a contact portion (210, Fig. 5, Parimi) arranged to contact the substrate (107) when the substrate is attracted to the attraction surface (210, para. [0030]).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the contact portion (210, Fig. 5, Parimi) has a circular shape (para. [0031]).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the contact portion (210, Fig. 5, Parimi) includes a plurality of contact portions (210).
Claim 10: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the plurality of contact portions (210, Fig. 5, Parimi) are arranged in an array (para. [0030]).
Claims 11-14: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda does not explicitly disclose (claim 11) wherein the at least one first recessed portion includes a plurality of first recessed portions, and the at least one second recessed portion includes a plurality of second recessed portions that is greater than a number of the plurality of first recessed portions; (claim 12) wherein the at least one second recessed portion includes a plurality of second recessed portions arranged concentrically; (claim 13) wherein the at least one second recessed portion includes a plurality of second recessed portions arranged radially relative to the attraction surface; (claim 14) wherein the at least one second recessed portion includes a plurality of second recessed portions.
Yet Parimi teaches that there can be multiple recessed portions of different depths, and the different regions can have different depths, relative coverage, cross-sectional shape, and/or width (para. [0035-0036]) for the purpose of changing heat transfer rates between the pedestal and a substrate supported thereon thereby modifying the temperature profile of the substrate (para. [0036]). It is noted that optimization of the number of first versus second recessed portions is taught by Parimi (para. [0032, 0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of number of first versus second recessed portions as taught by Parimi with motivation to change heat transfer rates between the pedestal and a substrate supported thereon thereby modifying the temperature profile of the substrate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda as applied to claims 1-14 above, and further in view of US 20230008922 to Pemmasani.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda discloses wherein the workpiece (107, Fig. 1, 5, Parimi) includes a substrate (107).
However The apparatus of Parimi as evidenced by Matsuda does not explicitly disclose and the density of the at least one second recessed portion is larger in a region of the substrate having greater warpage.
Pemmasani teaches that the density of the protrusions may be greater near a periphery than near a center of the substrate support surface, as an example of varying the density of the protrusions (para. [0044]) which necessarily affects the density of the respective recessed portions, and as well as the length of the depressed regions (recess portion(s)) can also vary (para. [0048]), for the purpose of combating radial non-uniformity issues (para. [0022]).
Regarding limitations drawn to the substrate warpage affected by the density of the second recessed portions, the recitations tie the structure of the apparatus to a substrate that may be worked upon by the apparatus, but is notably not part of the apparatus; and therefore cannot be used to define over the prior art apparatus. The courts have held that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of density of the recessed portions as taught by Pemmasani with motivation to combat radial non-uniformity issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180204747 discloses various diameters, depths, and pitch of recessed portions (Fig. 5A, 2). US 20070190200 discloses (FIGS. 4 and 5), each first recess 70 of fluid chambers 68 in a column a-1—a-5 of fluid chambers 68 may be in fluid communication with pump system 82 via throughway 78, which is a vacuum chuck, has different vacuum forces depending on depth (para. [0031]).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 on 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718