DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed 09/23/2025 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-8 remain rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the 112(a) rejection, accordingly the 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues (page 7-10):
“Claims 1,3,4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0287924) in view of Shu (EP 1399964 81) with Routine Optimization. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Shu with Routine Optimization as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotecki (US 5675471) and Wendell (US 2012/0307412). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Shu with Routine Optimization as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotecki.
Applicant herein amends independent claims 1, and respectfully requests
reconsideration of the claims in view of the amendments and the following arguments.
Amended independent claim 1 is directed to a method of fabricating a substrate support assembly, the method including the features, "providing a ceramic top plate having a top surface with a processing region, and one or more electrodes beneath theApp.
processing region," "forming a plurality of mesas within the processing region and on the top surface of the ceramic plate," and "laser-machining one or more of the plurality of mesas to reduce a surface roughness of the one or more of the plurality of mesas, wherein the one or more of the plurality of mesas is non-overlapping with the one or more electrodes of the ceramic top plate along a vertical axis." (Emphasis added.)
That is, Applicant teaches and claims to a method of fabricating a substrate
support assembly, the method including forming a plurality of mesas within a processing region and on a top surface of a ceramic plate, and laser-machining one or more of the plurality of mesas to reduce a surface roughness of the one or more of the plurality of mesas, where the one or more of the plurality of mesas is non-overlapping with electrodes of the ceramic top plate along a vertical axis. Applicant does not understand the cited art of record as disclosing at least these features of Applicant's claims.
Applicant understands Li as disclosing reducing a surface roughness of
protrusions 425 of a chuck body 407/405/409. An electrode 410 is in the chuck body 407/405/409 beneath the protrusions 425. (See Li, e.g., Figure 4, shown below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
24
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4
Figure 4 of Li.
However, Applicant understands Li as disclosing all of the protrusions 425 as
being overlapping with the electrode 410 along a vertical axis. As such, Applicant does NOT understand Li as disclosing forming a protrusion 425 as being non-overlapping with the electrode 410 along a vertical axis, let alone disclosing laser-machining a protrusion 425 that is non-overlapping with the electrode 410 to reduce a surface roughness of the protrusion 425 that is non-overlapping with the electrode 410 along a vertical axis. Thus, Li does not disclose a method of fabricating a substrate support assembly, the method including forming a plurality of mesas within a processing region and on a top surface of a ceramic plate, and laser-machining one or more of the plurality of mesas to reduce a surface roughness of the one or more of the plurality of mesas, where the one or more of the plurality of mesas is non-overlapping with electrodes of the ceramic top plate along a
vertical axis, as is required by Applicant's claims. As such, with respect to amended independent claim 1, Li fails to disclose each and every feature of Applicant's claims.
Furthermore, with respect to amended independent claim 1, the other cited references of fail to cure the above noted deficiencies of Li. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner remove the rejections of the claims.”.
However examiner respectfully disagrees because Li as modified by Shu with MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Routine Optimization, anticipates a advantage to optimization of structure relative to electrodes in the ceramic plate, to compensate with ceramic plate uniformity thickness CTE issues (see current rejection). Examiner notes the Applicant applies the optimization of features of ceramic plate near electrodes similarly to same reasoning of stress management (specifications [0045] “For example, mesas 212A and 212B are in high stress locations, while mesas 212C and 212D are in low stress regions. In an embodiment, mesas are included in locations 212C and/or 212D but not in locations 212A or 212B.” ).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show all of the mesas not overlapping in a vertical axis to the electrodes as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1,3,4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0287924) in view of Shu (EP 1399964 B1) with Routine Optimization.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of fabricating a substrate support assembly, the method comprising:
providing a ceramic top plate (top of ceramic substrate “In some embodiments the electrostatic chuck body 325 and/or the stem 330 may be insulative or dielectric materials. For example, oxides, nitrides, carbides, and other materials may be used to form the components. Exemplary materials may include ceramics, including aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, tungsten carbide, and any other metal or transition metal oxide, nitride, carbide, boride, or titanate, as well as combinations of these materials and other insulative or dielectric materials.” [0044]) having a top surface (top of chuck body) with a processing region (top features of chuck body 505/525/506), and one or more electrodes (410/335/122) beneath the processing region (as shown in figures 1-3-4);
forming a plurality of mesas (protrusions/mesas 525/506) within the processing region and on the top surface of the ceramic plate (as shown in figure 5, substrate 530 on mesas 506); and
laser-machining one or more of the plurality of mesas to reduce a surface roughness of the one or more of the plurality of mesas (mesas 525 surface finishing anticipated to laser smoothing, emphasis added “By providing a rounded corner on the protrusions 525, an edge interaction with the substrate may be reduced when a substrate begins deflecting, which may reduce or limit scratching on the backside of the substrate. In some embodiments an additional polishing operation may be performed during formation of the substrate support protrusions. The substrate support may be characterized by any of the features or characteristics discussed previously, and the additional polishing operation may provide both a smoother contact surface, as well as rounded corners extending radially about each protrusion. The additional polishing may include any number of polishing operations, which may include a mechanical soft polish, a chemical polish, a laser ablation or reduction, or any other ways by which a rounded profile may be produced.” [0061]),
wherein the one or more of the plurality of mesas is non-overlapping with the one or more electrodes of the ceramic top plate (electrode may be discontinuous, emphasis added “A second electrode 122 may be coupled with the substrate support 104. The second electrode 122 may be embedded within the substrate support 104 or coupled with a surface of the substrate support 104. The second electrode 122 may be a plate, a perforated plate, a mesh, a wire screen, or any other distributed arrangement of conductive elements.” [0027] while the mesas/protrusions may be placed anywhere such that overlapping non-overlapping is anticipated, emphasis added “The protrusions may be defined in any number of formations or patterns including uniform patterns as well as general distributions across the surface.” [0057]).
Li is silent regarding the electrodes non-overlapping with the mesas along a vertical axis.
However Shu with Routine Optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 II. A.) teaches obviousness to avoiding of non-uniformity of thickness of the ceramic plate for stress relief, “The amount of deformation of the chuck during sintering is influenced not only by the amount of stress developed during sintering but also by the ability of the sintered ceramic chuck to resist deformation. Therefore, various factors in addition to the aforementioned CTE differences can influence warping of the chuck. These factors include the processing conditions employed during sintering (particularly temperature), the elastic modulus of the ceramic material and geometric factors such as the thickness of the chuck and the position of the electrode with respect to the major surfaces (thickness direction) of the chuck.” [0031]. Avoidance to varying thickness of the ceramic plate reduces disruption to ideal CTE “Internal stresses which develop in sintered ceramic chucks during manufacture can lead to warping. A major cause of these internal stresses is the difference between the coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) of the ceramic material of the chuck body and the electrode material. The stresses induced by these CTE differences can lead to deformation or damage of the sintered chuck” [0020]).
The advantage of the one or more of the plurality of mesas is non-overlapping with the one or more electrodes of the ceramic top plate along a vertical axis, is to minimize the variance of thickness throughout the chuck reducing deformation or other failures of the chuck occurs during processing of said chuck “Since the sintering of ceramic ESCs is normally conducted at very high temperatures, differences in the coefficient of thermal expansion between the electrode material and the ceramic material can cause the build-up of internal stresses in the chuck. These internal stresses can lead to warping or, in some cases, actual damage to the ceramic ESC. Accordingly, there is a need in the art for overcoming warping and other problems associated with the build-up of internal stresses during manufacture of ceramic ESCs.” [0005].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Li with Shu by modifying the electrodes orientation to ceramic plate/mesas of Li with the CTE optimization of the ceramic features uniform thickness locally of Shu, because limiting the amount of non-uniformity of features (mesas/electrodes) to areas of the ceramic plate optimizes the unavoidable CTE acting on said features against harmful stresses.
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 1, Li further discloses wherein reducing the surface roughness of the one or more of the plurality of mesas comprises forming rounded corners on the one or more of the plurality of mesas (rounded corner 540, see figure 5 “The additional polishing may produce an edge blend creating a rounded corner extending radially about the protrusion. Because the substrate may deflect about the protrusions in all directions, a consistent rounding may facilitate a reduction in edge contact between the protrusions and the substrate.” [0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the method of claim 1, Li further discloses wherein the plurality of mesas is continuous with the top surface of the ceramic top plate (material of mesas may be continuous/monolithic to ceramic top plate “Each portion of the chuck body may be or include any of the materials described previously, and the two portions may be bonded, or otherwise formed into a monolithic component.” [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the method of claim 1, Li further discloses wherein the ceramic top plate comprises aluminum nitride (emphasis added, “In some embodiments the electrostatic chuck body 325 and/or the stem 330 may be insulative or dielectric materials. For example, oxides, nitrides, carbides, and other materials may be used to form the components. Exemplary materials may include ceramics, including aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride,” [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the method of claim 1, Li further discloses wherein the ceramic top plate comprises aluminum oxide (emphasis added, “In some embodiments the electrostatic chuck body 325 and/or the stem 330 may be insulative or dielectric materials. For example, oxides, nitrides, carbides, and other materials may be used to form the components. Exemplary materials may include ceramics, including aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride,” [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the method of claim 1, Li further discloses further comprising forming one or more electrodes within the ceramic top plate (electrodes above heater in top plate zone of chuck “The substrate support assemblies may include an electrode embedded within the electrostatic chuck body between the heater and the substrate support surface.” [0004]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Shu with Routine Optimization as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotecki (US 5675471) and Wendell (US 2012/0307412).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein reducing the surface roughness comprises reducing from
surface roughness range anticipated up to 2 micrometers “The ceramic material may be characterized by a surface roughness arithmetical mean height of less than or about 0.5 μm. The ceramic material may be characterized by a surface roughness maximum peak height of less than or about 2 μm.” [0005]).
Li is silent regarding reducing surface roughness from 8-12 microns Ra to between 1-4 microns Ra.
However Kotecki teaches surface roughness in excess of 0.5 microns and a pattern of grooves formed therein to a depth which is short relative to the mean free path of a gas which may be disposed therein at a static pressure,” (column 3-4, lines 66-16),
surface roughness being dependent to an amount of bead blasting in forming the roughened mesas “In such a case, the surface roughness and/or nominal contact area fraction may be adjusted to match the expected plasma density profile at various locations on the wafer. Reduced nominal contact fraction is preferably achieved by machining grooves of increased width and approximately the same periodicity into the face of the electrostatic chuck. Increased surface roughness may be achieved by wet etching prior to anodization and/or blasting the surface with abrasives or beads. In the latter case, the mount of bead blasting will be directly proportional to the surface roughness achieved.” (column 17-18, lines 48-16),
roughness anticipated to variation between different locations of chuck mesas “As a variation of the invention it should also be noted that the surface roughness of the outer, annular portion or rim need not be the same as the surface roughness of the central portion defined by the groove pattern or even constant over the width of the outer, annular portion. That is, in some cases it may be desirable to provide a surface roughness of the outer, annular portion of the surface which has a roughness which is reduced and/or graded in comparison with the central portion of the pattern. In such a case, reduced roughness could allow a reduced width of the outer, annular portion and extend the region of constant temperature closer to the wafer edge. Such a variation of the invention would also allow different rates of adjustment of effective contact area with adjustment of clamping voltage.” (column 15-16, lines 64-29)).
The advantage of wherein the surface roughness comprises 8-12 Ra and 1-4 microns Ra, is to provide increased ability to process at higher temperatures and to increase heating uniformity during processing “the temperature range within which a wafer is to be maintained is determined by providing a particular degree of surface roughness of the face of the ESC. In particular, heat transfer coefficient from the wafer to the chuck can be arbitrarily decreased by increase of surface roughness and overall heat transfer across that interface may be arbitrarily reduced by a combination of surface roughness and chuck temperature while maintaining good temperature uniformity across the wafer surface. For any given surface roughness of the electrostatic chuck, the overall temperature of the wafer can be strongly adjusted by varying the value of the ESC clamping voltage (V.sub.ESC) and the temperature fine tuned by adjusting the value of the pressure of the gas (usually He) between the wafer and the chuck (P.sub.He). The temperature distribution across the wafer surface, for a given value of the heat transfer coefficients h.sub.e (due to the physical contact between the silicon wafer and the ESC) and h.sub.g (due to the presence of the He gas), is determined by the surface pattern on the ESC and a novel chuck surface pattern yielding a high degree of temperature uniformity is provided.” (column 3, lines 45-64).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Li and Kotecki before him or her, to modify the roughness range of Li to include the higher anticipated roughness ranges and multiple roughness ranges of Kotecki because it is known in art that roughness exceeding 0.5 Ra is beneficial to electrostatic chucks for processing substrates thereon at increased temperature ranges and to improve heat distribution.
Additionally Wendell teaches reducing roughness of an electrostatic chuck that has been bead blasted (bead blasting texturing/creation of mesas leaves sharp edges/burs that require a degree of smoothing/reduction of roughness “The exposed new dielectric material 402 is then bead blasted through the openings 504 formed through the mask 502. The mask 502 is removed to leave the newly formed mesas 604 and gas retention ring 602, as shown in FIG. 6.
The mesas 604 and gas retention ring 602 may have sharp edges or burrs that may scratch the back of the substrate during processing and create undesired particles. Therefore, the mesas 604 and gas retention ring 602 may be polished with a soft polishing pad under minimum force to round the sharp corners, to remove the burrs and to leave the finished mesas 704 and retention ring 702 as shown in FIG. 7. Thus, the refurbished electrostatic chuck 700 is again ready for operation.” [0028-0029]).
The advantage of reducing roughness, is to round out sharp edges or burs from prior processing’s that pose risk to wafers during processing “The mesas 604 and gas retention ring 602 may have sharp edges or burrs that may scratch the back of the substrate during processing and create undesired particles. Therefore, the mesas 604 and gas retention ring 602 may be polished with a soft polishing pad under minimum force to round the sharp corners, to remove the burrs” [0029].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Li as already modified and Wendell before him or her, to modify the roughness from processing of Li to include the roughness reduction of Wendell because the roughness reduction will smooth out sharp edges and burs, reducing risk to processing performed by the electrostatic chuck.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Shu with Routine Optimization as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotecki.
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the method of claim 1, Li is silent regarding wherein the one or more of the plurality of mesas includes only fewer than all of the plurality of mesas.
However Kotecki teaches wherein the one or more of the plurality of mesas includes only fewer than all of the plurality of mesas (“As a variation of the invention it should also be noted that the surface roughness of the outer, annular portion or rim need not be the same as the surface roughness of the central portion defined by the groove pattern or even constant over the width of the outer, annular portion.” (column 15-16, lines 64-29)).
The advantage of wherein the one or more of the plurality of mesas includes only fewer than all of the plurality of mesas, is to provide varied roughness between supported regions of the wafer to allow different rates of adjustment to the wafer during processing “As a variation of the invention it should also be noted that the surface roughness of the outer, annular portion or rim need not be the same as the surface roughness of the central portion defined by the groove pattern or even constant over the width of the outer, annular portion. That is, in some cases it may be desirable to provide a surface roughness of the outer, annular portion of the surface which has a roughness which is reduced and/or graded in comparison with the central portion of the pattern. In such a case, reduced roughness could allow a reduced width of the outer, annular portion and extend the region of constant temperature closer to the wafer edge. Such a variation of the invention would also allow different rates of adjustment of effective contact area with adjustment of clamping voltage.” (column 15-16, lines 64-29).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Li and Kotecki before him or her, to modify the roughness range of Li to include the higher anticipated roughness range and multiple roughness ranges of Kotecki because providing varied roughness between supported regions/mesas of the wafer allows different rates of adjustment to the wafer during processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer H Kirkwood whose telephone number is (469)295-9113. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 am - 9:00 pm Eastern.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/Spencer H. Kirkwood/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights