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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11, 12, 14-21, 23-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the second material surface facing away from the substrate, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent No. 5413360 to Atari et al is presented below.
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) 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent No. 5413360 to Atari et al.
In regards to Claim 11, Hanzlik substrate holder 114 Fig. 1, 8 comprising: a chuck configured to immobilize a substrate 102 at a first side 168 of the chuck [0063] comprising a first material (aluminum, [0075]);
a heater 130 disposed in the chuck and configured to heat the substrate [0067]; and a second material 124 disposed at a second side of the chuck opposing the first side (as shown in Fig. 1), the second material comprising an exposed surface facing away from the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1 and 8) [0050-0117].
Hanzlik does not expressly teach that the second material is configured to cool the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, the emissivity of the first material being lower than the emissivity of the second material.
Atari teaches an electrostatic chuck 1 Fig. 7 that is supported by a base/pedestal or second material 7 that is made out of aluminum that has been anodized (Col. 14 lines 25-35).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a bottom aluminum plate of an electrostatic chuck anodized aluminum to form an alumite layer analogous to that of Atari, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 11, as the material of anodized aluminum cools the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, as supported in the instant application, and is an implicit function of the material chosen.
In regards to Claim 12, Hanzlik teaches wherein the substrate 102 comprises a major surface (horizontal surface of 102), and wherein the first side of the chuck entirely overlaps the major surface of the substrate (as shown in the overlapping sizes of 120 and 168 and 102 in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 14, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the second material is a coating or film covering the second side of the chuck (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 15, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the coating or film is a dielectric layer of alumite, which is implicitly a hard anodized coating (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 16, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the coating or film is a high emissivity coating configured to also provide chemical resistance, as it is alumina formed by anodizing aluminum, which is supported in the instant application as suitable materials, (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 17, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the second material is a high emissivity ceramic, as it is alumina formed by anodizing aluminum, which is supported in the instant application as suitable materials (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 29, Hanzlik substrate holder 114 Fig. 1, 8 comprising: a chuck configured to immobilize a substrate 102 at a first side 168 of the chuck [0063] comprising a first material (aluminum, [0075]); the substrate 102 comprising a major surface (horizontal surface), wherein the first side 120 of the chuck entirely overlaps the major surface of the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1), a heater 130 disposed on or in the chuck and configured to heat the substrate; and a second material 122 disposed at a second side of the chuck opposing the first side, the second material comprising an exposed surface facing away from the substrate (as shown in Fig. 8) (as shown in Fig. 1 and 8) [0050-0117].
Hanzlik does not expressly teach that the second material is configured to cool the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, the emissivity of the first material being lower than the emissivity of the second material.
Atari teaches an electrostatic chuck 1 Fig. 7 that is supported by a base/pedestal or second material 7 that is made out of aluminum that has been anodized (Col. 14 lines 25-35).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a bottom aluminum plate of an electrostatic chuck anodized aluminum to form an alumite layer analogous to that of Atari, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 11.
In regards to Claim 30, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the coating or film is a dielectric layer of alumite, which is implicitly a hard anodized coating (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 29 above).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2013/0105087 to Cho et al.
In regards to Claim 18, Hanzlik teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1 comprising: a vacuum chamber 108 [0056]; an electrostatic chuck (ESC) 114 disposed in the vacuum chamber and having no liquid cooling mechanism (as shown in Fig. 1), the ESC being configured to clamp a substrate 102 to an upper surface of the ESC facing a localized processing source 106, 112; a heater 130 integrated with the ESC and configured to heat the substrate while processing the substrate; and a mechanical arm 194 attached to the ESC and configured to move the substrate laterally relative to the localized processing source 106, 112 to process the substrate [0050-0117].
Hanzlik teaches that the robotic arm can be used to move the substrate relative to a treatment spray 106 but does not expressly teach a localized plasma source.
Cho teaches chucks 215 that are moved through robotic arms 255, 200 to undergo treatment in a process chamber 230 [0028-0038], such that the process chamber has an implicit localized plasma source and is a process equivalent for wafer processing.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus as the plasma localized source is a processing treatment for a wafer, like the treatment spray 106 of Hanzlik, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to make the spray of Hanzlik a localized plasma source, as per the teachings of Cho. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 19, 20, 21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2013/0105087 to Cho et al and United States Patent No. 5413360 to Atari et al.
The teachings of Hanzlik in view of Cho are relied upon as set forth in the 103 rejection of Claim 18 above.
In regards to Claim 19, Hanzlik substrate holder 114 Fig. 1, 8 comprising: a chuck configured to immobilize a substrate 102 at a first side 168 of the chuck [0063] comprising a first material (aluminum, [0075]);
a heater 130 disposed in the chuck and configured to heat the substrate [0067]; and a second material 124 disposed at a second side of the chuck opposing the first side (as shown in Fig. 1), the second material comprising an exposed surface facing away from the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1 and 8) [0050-0117].
Hanzlik does not expressly teach that the second material is configured to cool the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, the emissivity of the first material being lower than the emissivity of the second material.
Atari teaches an electrostatic chuck 1 Fig. 7 that is supported by a base/pedestal or second material 7 that is made out of aluminum that has been anodized (Col. 14 lines 25-35).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a bottom aluminum plate of an electrostatic chuck anodized aluminum to form an alumite layer analogous to that of Atari, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 11, as the material of anodized aluminum cools the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, as supported in the instant application, and is an implicit function of the material chosen.
In regards to Claim 20, Hanzlik does not expressly teach an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, the exposed upper surface also comprising the second material.
Cho teaches an overscan shield in the form of a protective ceramic frame 115 that is made out of alumina (the same material as anodized aluminum) that surrounds the aluminum body, the frame protecting the aluminum body and protects the chuck from corrosion [0026; 0021-0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hanzlik with the teachings of Cho, and have added an alumina/anodized aluminum material frame to the outer vertical aluminum surfaces of 120/170 of Hanzlik, which is aluminum. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of protecting the aluminum body from corrosion. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting structure would have an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, the exposed upper surface also comprising the second material, as the frame would be added to the pre-existing aluminum body and thus extend laterally outward, thus resulting in the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 21, Hanzlik teaches wherein the substrate 102 comprises a major surface (horizontal surface of 102), and wherein the first side of the chuck entirely overlaps the major surface of the substrate (as shown in the overlapping sizes of 120 and 168 and 102 in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 23, Hanzlik in view of Cho and Atari teaches the second material is a coating or film of anodized aluminum, which is placed on the entire surface of 7 of Atari, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above.
In regards to Claim 24, Hanzlik in view of Cho and Atari teaches the coating or film is a dielectric layer of alumina, which is implicitly a hard anodized coating, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above and the teachings of Atari.
In regards to Claim 25, Hanzlik in view of Cho and Atari teaches the coating or film is a high emissivity coating configured to also provide chemical resistance, as supported by the instant application of the anodized aluminum being a suitable material, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above and the teachings of Atari.
In regards to Claim 26, Hanzlik in view of Cho and Atari teaches the second material is a high emissivity ceramic, as supported by the instant application of the anodized aluminum being a suitable material, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above and the teachings of Atari.
In regards to Claim 27, Hanzlik does not expressly teach an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, and an exposed lower surface opposite the exposed upper surface, the exposed lower surface also comprising the second material.
Cho teaches an overscan shield in the form of a protective ceramic frame 115 that is made out of alumina (the same material as anodized aluminum) that surrounds the aluminum body, the frame protecting the aluminum body and protects the chuck from corrosion [0026; 0021-0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hanzlik with the teachings of Cho, and have added an alumina/anodized aluminum material frame to the outer vertical aluminum surfaces of 120/170 of Hanzlik, which is aluminum. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of protecting the aluminum body from corrosion. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting structure would have an overscan shield comprising an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, and an exposed lower surface opposite the exposed upper surface, as the frame would be added to the pre-existing aluminum body and thus extend laterally outward, having exposed lower and upper surfaces, thus resulting in the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 28, Hanzlik in view of Cho teaches the exposed upper surface also comprises the second material, as per the teachings of Cho above.
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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 at (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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716