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 Amendment
The amendment filed 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-15, and 21-25 are pending.
Claims 3-6 and 10-13 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14-15 are currently amended.
Claims 21-25 are newly added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to call out the fluid channel path pattern on insulation member 270 as described in the specification in paragraphs [0083]-[0084] with regards to Figure 3. 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 20200111640 A1) in view of Sung (US 20190148119 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shim teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Shim, Fig. 1, [0040],substrate treating apparatus 10) comprising: a chamber for treating a substrate therein (Shim, Fig. 1, [0040], process chamber 100);
a support unit configured to support the substrate within the chamber (Shim, Fig. 1, [0045], support unit 200 located inside housing 110 supports substrate W), the support unit including
an electrostatic chuck configured to adsorb the substrate using an electrostatic force (Shim, Fig. 1, [0049], electrostatic chuck 210 clamps substrate W by electrostatic force), and
a bottom cover at a bottom end of the support unit, the bottom cover defining a first space having an open top and filled with air (Shim, Fig. 1, [0059]-[0061], lower cover 270 located at bottom end of support unit 200 has an open top, where lower cover 270 has an inner space thereof), and
an insulation member between the electrostatic chuck and the bottom cover in a vertical direction and covering the open top of the first space (Shim, Fig. 1, [0060], insulation plate 250 is located between the support unit 200 containing ESC 210 and covers top of lower cover 270).
Shim fails to teach the insulation member defining a second space of a volume, the second space configured to function as a fluid channel, and
an adjusting unit configured to adjust a degree of filling of fluid injected into the second space to control an impedance of the chamber.
However, Sung teaches the insulation member defining a second space of a volume, the second space configured to function as a fluid channel (Sung, Figs. 5A, 7C, [0071], insertion body 210 may be formed of an insulator and has dielectric insertion layer 220), and
an adjusting unit configured to adjust a degree of filling of fluid injected into the second space to control an impedance of the chamber (Sung, Fig. 1, [0113], second plasma distribution control structure PCS2 adjusts the permittivity of the high-k dielectric fluid 230 of the dielectric insertion layer 220 by adjusting the level of the fluid [0089], where impedance increases when permittivity decreases, and vice versa [0086]).
Sung is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the plasma distribution control structure as taught by Sung into the insulation member of Shim as doing so would provide an additional mechanism to adjust the plasma distribution of the process via adjustment of the electric field (Sung, [0113]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “an adjusting unit configured to adjust a degree of filling of fluid injected into the second space to control an impedance of the chamber“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The plasma distribution control structure of Sung is capable of adjustably filling the hollow dielectric insertion layer with a fluid, thereby meeting the structural limitations of the claim. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Shim teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Shim, Fig. 1, [0040],substrate treating apparatus 10) comprising: a chamber configured to treat a substrate therein (Shim, Fig. 1, [0040], process chamber 100);
a support unit configured to support the substrate within the chamber (Shim, Fig. 1, [0045], support unit 200 located inside housing 110 supports substrate W), the support unit including
an electrostatic chuck configured to adsorb the substrate using an electrostatic force (Shim, Fig. 1, [0049], electrostatic chuck 210 clamps substrate W by electrostatic force),
a bottom cover at a bottom end of the support unit, the bottom cover defining a first space having an open top and filled with air (Shim, Fig. 1, [0059]-[0061], lower cover 270 located at bottom end of support unit 200 has an open top, where lower cover 270 has an inner space thereof), and
an insulation member between the electrostatic chuck and the bottom cover in a vertical direction and covering the open top of the first space (Shim, Fig. 1, [0060], insulation plate 250 is located between the support unit 200 containing ESC 210 and covers top of lower cover 270);
a gas supply unit configured to supply a treating gas within the chamber (Shim, Fig. 1, [0062], gas supply unit 300 supplies a process gas into the process chamber 100); and
a plasma source configured to generate a plasma from the treating gas (Shim, [0064]-[0067], plasma generation unit 400 excites the process gas into plasma).
Shim fails to teach the insulation member defining a second space of a volume, the second space configured to function as a fluid channel, and
an adjusting unit configured to adjust a degree of filling of fluid injected into the second space to control an impedance of the chamber.
However, Sung teaches the insulation member defining a second space of a volume, the second space configured to function as a fluid channel (Sung, Figs. 5A, 7C, [0071], insertion body 210 may be formed of an insulator and has dielectric insertion layer 220), and
an adjusting unit configured to adjust a degree of filling of fluid injected into the second space to control an impedance of the chamber (Sung, Fig. 1, [0113], second plasma distribution control structure PCS2 adjusts the permittivity of the high-k dielectric fluid 230 of the dielectric insertion layer 220 by adjusting the level of the fluid [0089], where impedance increases when permittivity decreases, and vice versa [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the plasma distribution control structure as taught by Sung into the insulation member of Shim as doing so would provide an additional mechanism to adjust the plasma distribution of the process via adjustment of the electric field (Sung, [0113]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “an adjusting unit configured to adjust a degree of filling of fluid injected into the second space to control an impedance of the chamber“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The plasma distribution control structure of Sung is capable of adjustably filling the hollow dielectric insertion layer with a fluid, thereby meeting the structural limitations of the claim. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claims 2, 9, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 20200111640 A1) in view of Sung (US 20190148119 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Okumura (US 20050276928 A1).
The limitations of claims 1 and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the second space extends between two opposite edge regions of the support unit in a cross-section such that the second space continuously overlaps from a central region to a respective one of the two opposite edge regions of the support unit when viewed from above.
However, Okumura teaches wherein the second space extends between two opposite edge regions of the support unit in a cross-section such that the second space continuously overlaps from a central region to a respective one of the two opposite edge regions of the support unit when viewed from above (Okumura, Figs. 41-42D, [0188]-[0191], electrode 38 having hollow body 90 contains single void area 104 which extends across susceptor 12 and overlaps with focus ring 18 on the edge of susceptor 12, is adjustably filled with dielectric fluid NZ and air).
Okumura is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to replace the multiple center and edge separate hollow bodies of modified Shim with the singular hollow body of Okumura as doing so would provide a means to adjust the electric field (and thus plasma uniformity) across the wafer surface center-to-edge by manipulating the shape of a singular hollow body (Okumura, [0189], Fig. 44) instead of having to manufacture multiple hollow body regions with multiple control mechanisms.
Regarding claim 9, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the second space extends between two opposite edge regions of the support unit in a cross-section such that the second space continuously overlaps from a central region to a respective one of the two opposite edge regions of the support unit when viewed from above.
However, Okumura teaches wherein the second space extends between two opposite edge regions of the support unit in a cross-section such that the second space continuously overlaps from a central region to a respective one of the two opposite edge regions of the support unit when viewed from above (Okumura, Figs. 41-42D, [0188]-[0191], electrode 38 having hollow body 90 contains single void area 104 which extends across susceptor 12 and overlaps with focus ring 18 on the edge of susceptor 12, is adjustably filled with dielectric fluid NZ and air).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to replace the multiple center and edge separate hollow bodies of modified Shim with the singular hollow body of Okumura as doing so would provide a means to adjust the electric field (and thus plasma uniformity) across the wafer surface center-to-edge by manipulating the shape of a singular hollow body (Okumura, [0189], Fig. 44) instead of having to manufacture multiple hollow body regions with multiple control mechanisms.
Regarding claim 21, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the second space is configured as a single continuous shape.
However, Okumura teaches wherein the second space is configured as a single continuous shape (Okumura, Figs. 41-42D, [0188]-[0191], electrode 38 having hollow body 90 contains single void area 104 which extends across susceptor 12 and overlaps with focus ring 18 on the edge of susceptor 12, is adjustably filled with dielectric fluid NZ and air).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to replace the multiple center and edge separate hollow bodies of modified Shim with the singular hollow body of Okumura as doing so would provide a means to adjust the electric field (and thus plasma uniformity) across the wafer surface center-to-edge by manipulating the shape of a singular hollow body (Okumura, [0189], Fig. 44) instead of having to manufacture multiple hollow body regions with multiple control mechanisms.
Regarding claim 24, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the second space is configured as a single continuous shape.
However, Okumura teaches wherein the second space is configured as a single continuous shape (Okumura, Figs. 41-42D, [0188]-[0191], electrode 38 having hollow body 90 contains single void area 104 which extends across susceptor 12 and overlaps with focus ring 18 on the edge of susceptor 12, is adjustably filled with dielectric fluid NZ and air).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to replace the multiple center and edge separate hollow bodies of modified Shim with the singular hollow body of Okumura as doing so would provide a means to adjust the electric field (and thus plasma uniformity) across the wafer surface center-to-edge by manipulating the shape of a singular hollow body (Okumura, [0189], Fig. 44) instead of having to manufacture multiple hollow body regions with multiple control mechanisms.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 20200111640 A1) in view of Sung (US 20190148119 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Noh (US 10283382 B2).
The limitations of claims 1 and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the adjusting unit is a chiller or a pump.
However, Noh teaches wherein the adjusting unit is a chiller or a pump (Noh, Fig. 1, Fig. 9 and 10, C8, L41-49, fluid controller 110 controls pump 120 to provide a calculated amount of fluid to flow channel 45, C15, L7-14).
Noh is considered analogous art to claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the controlling unit and pump of Noh as doing so would allow for the calculation of the ratio of the fluid and air portion, and based on feedback from the plasma, could adjust the amount of fluid in the channel to adjust the plasma distribution (Noh, Col 15, L7-14).
Regarding claim 14, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the adjusting unit is a chiller or a pump.
However, Noh teaches wherein the adjusting unit is a chiller or a pump (Noh, Fig. 1, Fig. 9 and 10, C8, L41-49, fluid controller 110 controls pump 120 to provide a calculated amount of fluid to flow channel 45, C15, L7-14).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the controlling unit and pump of Noh as doing so would allow for the calculation of the ratio of the fluid and air portion, and based on feedback from the plasma, could adjust the amount of fluid in the channel to adjust the plasma distribution (Noh, Col 15, L7-14).
Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 20200111640 A1) in view of Sung (US 20190148119 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Koshimizu (US 8894806 B2).
The limitations of claims 1 and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the fluid is a non-conducting liquid.
However, Koshimizu teaches wherein the fluid is a non-conducting liquid (Koshimizu, Fig. 5B, C11 L49-60, a dielectric liquid Q, such as Fluorinert™, is used in cavity 94).
Koshimizu is considered analogous art to claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used Fluorinert™ as the non-conducting fluid because, like the dielectric fluid used in Sung, Fluorinert™ has a high-k dielectric constant (Koshimizu, C11 L49-60, dielectric liquid Q having a high dielectric constant such as Fluorinert™). When equivalency of a substitution is recognized in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 23, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the fluid is a non-conducting liquid.
However, Koshimizu teaches wherein the fluid is a non-conducting liquid (Koshimizu, Fig. 5B, C11 L49-60, a dielectric liquid Q, such as Fluorinert™, is used in cavity 94).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used Fluorinert™ as the non-conducting fluid because, like the dielectric fluid used in Sung, Fluorinert™ has a high-k dielectric constant (Koshimizu, C11 L49-60, dielectric liquid Q having a high dielectric constant such as Fluorinert™). When equivalency of a substitution is recognized in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 20200111640 A1) in view of Sung (US 20190148119 A1) and Okumura (US 20050276928 A1), as applied in claims 2, 9, 21, and 24 above, and further in view of Tobe (US 20190035609 A1).
The limitations of claims 2, 9, 21, and 24 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 22, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the single continuous shape is a shape that continuously rotates inward or outward around a same center in a circular manner.
However, Tobe teaches wherein the single continuous shape is a shape that continuously rotates inward or outward around a same center in a circular manner (Tobe, Fig. 3, [0048], coolant path 14f extends in a spiral shape from center toward a periphery).
Tobe is considered analogous art to claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the continuous void shape as taught by modified Shim with the spiral shape as taught by Tobe as they are art recognized equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Okumura teaches wherein void 104 is filled/evacuated with fluid through a pipe 106 and a pipe 108, where the pipe heights into the void are offset vertically (Okumura, Figs. 42A-42D, [0189]-[0191]). Tobe teaches wherein path 14f is filled/evacuated with fluid through a pipe 14i and a pipe 14e, where the pipe heights into the path are offset vertically, where the embodiments disclosed in Tobe Figs. 3 & 4 are equivalent, except that fluid path 14f is a circular plane shape in Fig. 4 instead of a spiral in Fig. 3 (Tobe, Figs. 3-4, [0048]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Shim fails to teach wherein the single continuous shape is a shape that continuously rotates inward or outward around a same center in a circular manner.
However, Tobe teaches wherein the single continuous shape is a shape that continuously rotates inward or outward around a same center in a circular manner (Tobe, Fig. 3, [0048], coolant path 14f extends in a spiral shape from center toward a periphery).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the continuous void shape as taught by modified Shim with the spiral shape as taught by Tobe as they are art recognized equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Okumura teaches wherein void 104 is filled/evacuated with fluid through a pipe 106 and a pipe 108, where the pipe heights into the void are offset vertically (Okumura, Figs. 42A-42D, [0189]-[0191]). Tobe teaches wherein path 14f is filled/evacuated with fluid through a pipe 14i and a pipe 14e, where the pipe heights into the path are offset vertically, where the embodiments disclosed in Tobe Figs. 3 & 4 are equivalent, except that fluid path 14f is a circular plane shape in Fig. 4 instead of a spiral in Fig. 3 (Tobe, Figs. 3-4, [0048]-[0052]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 01/27/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Sung, teach the claim limitations “"a support unit configured to support the substrate within the chamber, the support unit including an electrostatic chuck configured to adsorb the substrate using an electrostatic force, a bottom cover at a bottom end of the support unit, the bottom cover defining a first space having an open top and filled with air, and an insulation member between the electrostatic chuck and the bottom cover in a vertical direction and covering the open top of the first space, the insulation member defining a second space of a volume, the second space configured to function as a fluid channel" and "an adjusting unit configured to adjust a degree of filling of fluid injected into the second space to control an impedance of the chamber" of independent claim 1 (and similarly claim 8) as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights