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 filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that 52 of Nagaiwa is not clamped down mechanically but through an adhesive and that rings 52 and 55 cannot be combined is not considered persuasive.
The Examiner notes that even though 52 is not directly clamped down by screw 56a, the presence of 64 (which is analogous to clamp frame 18 and outer cover 24 by how it clamps down on focus ring 12) shows another mechanism for clamping down the focus ring (as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 8. [0051]). As such there is a mechanical clamping separate from the screw that fulfills this claim.
Furthermore, the argument that rings 52 and 55 cannot be considered a focus ring is not considered persuasive. Specifically, there are no specifics in the claim that would limit the edge ring from being a two part ring- as the ring is simply recited as an edge ring and not a single body or unitary body ring. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single body edge ring) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant argues that Endoh and Moriya do not expressly teach “mechanical clamping” as they teach “electrostatic clamping.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Endoh and Moriya do teach an electrical clamping device- which is a form of a machine/machinery. The definition from Merriam-Webster of mechanical, machinery, and machine expressly support that electrostatic chucking is a mechanical mechanism as a machine can include electrically operated device. The Examiner further notes that there is no definition of mechanical in the specification or in the claims that would limit the interpretation of “mechanical” to exclude electrostatic devices. The Applicant appears to assume mechanical clamping to a screw or similar device, but this is not expressly defined as mechanical in the specification nor is there any recitation of the word “mechanical” to identify or bound the scope of the claims to a screw, for instance.
For the reasons above, the scope of the rejection below is maintained and the rejection is maintained and made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 10, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2002/0029745 to Nagaiwa et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Nagaiwa teaches a substrate support 50 Fig. 8 for a substrate processing chamber 2 Fig. 1, the substrate support comprising: a baseplate 51 Fig. 8; an edge ring 52, 55 mechanically clamped (via screw 56a [0088], or 52 clamped via 64, which is clamped by 24 and 18) to the baseplate; a seal arrangement 51e located between the edge ring and the baseplate (between as the seal implicitly would protrude slightly higher than the top surface to be compressed by the ring to form said seal), wherein the seal arrangement is configured to define an interface 51D between the edge ring and the baseplate; and at least one channel 51C in fluid communication with the interface and configured to supply a heat transfer gas to the interface [0035-0093].
PNG
media_image1.png
291
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 2, Nagaiwa expressly teaches the interface comprises a gap/recess 51D between a lower surface of the edge ring and an upper surface of the baseplate [0089-0090].
In regards to Claim 4, Nagaiwa teaches the seal arrangement includes first and second annular seals and the interface is defined between the first and second annular seals, as shown in the two 51E and 51D in between in Fig. 8.
In regards to Claim 8, Nagaiwa teaches a support ring 64 configured to bias the edge ring downward toward the interface, as it pushes down via gravity in Fig. 8.
In regards to Claim 9, Nagaiwa teaches the at least one channel 51C is provided through the baseplate, as shown in Fig. 8.
In regards to Claim 10, Nagaiwa teaches a heat transfer gas source configured to supply the heat transfer gas to the interface via the at least one channel, as shown in Fig. 8.
In regards to Claim 27, Nagaiwa teaches a plurality of fasteners configured to mechanically clamp the edge ring to the substrate support [0088].
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 17 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2004/0261946 to Endoh et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Endoh teaches a substrate support 11, 25 Fig. 1, 6, 7a, 7b for a substrate processing chamber 10, the substrate support comprising: a baseplate 11, 25; an edge ring 30 mechanically clamped to the baseplate (through the mechanism of electrostatic clamping of 25d, wherein mechanically is defined as through the mechanics of the electrostatic clamp); a seal arrangement (in the form of the physical contact between 30 and 25) located between the edge ring and the baseplate, wherein the seal arrangement is configured to define an interface (space of 44) between the edge ring and the baseplate; and at least one channel 46b in fluid communication with the interface and configured to supply a heat transfer gas [0137] to the interface [0094-0243].
In regards to Claim 2, Endoh teaches the interface comprises a gap 44 between a lower surface of the edge ring and an upper surface of the baseplate, as shown in Fig. 6.
In regards to Claim 4, Endoh teaches wherein the seal arrangement includes first and second annular seals and the interface is defined between the first and second annular seals, as per the annotated copy of Fig. 6 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
434
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 5, Endoh teaches the seal arrangement includes a third annular seal arranged between the first annular seal and the second annular seal, and wherein the third annual seal divides the interface into a first region and a second region, as per the annotated copy of Fig. 6 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Endoh teaches the seal arrangement includes two or more azimuthal seals (protrusions that form 44c) extending in a radial direction between the first and second annular seals, wherein the two or more azimuthal seals divide the interface into two or more azimuthal zones 44c configured to separately receive the heat transfer gas.
In regards to Claim 9, Endoh teaches the at least one channel 46b is provided through the baseplate (as shown in Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 10, Endoh teaches a system Fig. 1 comprising the substrate support of claim 1, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above under Endoh, and further comprising a heat transfer gas source 35 configured to supply the heat transfer gas to the interface via the at least one channel 46b.
In regards to Claim 11, Endoh teaches a controller 43 configured to control the supply of the heat transfer gas to the interface to adjust a temperature of the edge ring [0103, 0141, 0142, 0159].
In regards to Claim 12, Endoh teaches a substrate support 11, 25 Fig. 1, 6, 7a, 7b for a substrate processing chamber 10, the substrate support comprising: a baseplate 25a, 11; an edge ring 30 mechanically clamped to the baseplate (through the mechanism of electrostatic clamping of 25d, wherein mechanically is defined as through the mechanics of the electrostatic clamp), wherein a lower surface of the edge ring includes first 44a and second 44b annular grooves; and a first seal arranged in the first annular groove (as it in parts forms said groove, the seal being the physical contact between the ring and the baseplate); and a second seal arranged in the second annular groove (as it in parts forms said groove, the seal being the physical contact between the ring and the baseplate), wherein the first and second seals define an interface (gas groove space of 44) between the edge ring and the baseplate, wherein the interface is in fluid communication with a heat transfer gas source 46b [0094-0243].
In regards to Claim 13, Endoh teaches at least one channel 46b in fluid communication with the interface and configured to supply a heat transfer gas to the interface from the heat transfer gas source [0140-0142].
In regards to Claim 16, Endoh teaches a system Fig. 1 comprising the substrate support of claim 12, as per the rejection of Claim 12 under Endoh above, and further comprising the heat transfer gas source 35.
In regards to Claim 17, Endoh teaches a controller 43 configured to control a supply of the heat transfer gas 35 to the interface to adjust a temperature of the edge ring [0103, 0141, 0142, 0159].
In regards to Claim 32, Endoh teaches the sealing arrangement includes two or more azimuthal seals (ring portions from 30 that divide 44a, 44b in between) extending in a radial direction between the first and second annular seals, wherein the two or more azimuthal seals divide the interface into two or more azimuthal zones 44c configured to separately receive respective heat transfer gases, as shown in Fig. 7a, 7b, as broadly recited in the claim.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0029745 to Nagaiwa et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0308737 to Moriya et al.
The teachings of Nagaiwa are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 3, Nagaiwa does not expressly teach the gap has a depth of less than 25 microns.
Moriya teaches a substrate support 1 Fig. 1 comprising a baseplate 1, 2 with an edge ring 30 that is mechanically clamped to the baseplate via lift pin 39 and a lift pin drive device 37 that behaves as a drive/actuator device to lift the ring for substrate transfer, and to fix the ring against the interface 40 [0033-0037], which has a gap 40 that has a depth most preferably of 10µm-12µm [0042-0043].
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 it would be obvious to make the gap of Nagaiwa have a depth of 10-12µm, which is a depth less than 25µm, as an art analogous depth teaching for the gap. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 3, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2004/0261946 to Endoh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0308737 to Moriya et al.
The teachings of Endoh are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 3, Endoh does not expressly teach the gap has a depth of less than 25 microns.
Moriya teaches a substrate support 1 Fig. 1 comprising a baseplate 1, 2 with an edge ring 30 that is mechanically clamped to the baseplate via lift pin 39 and a lift pin drive device 37 that behaves as a drive/actuator device to lift the ring for substrate transfer, and to fix the ring against the interface 40 [0033-0037], which has a gap 40 that has a depth most preferably of 10µm-12µm [0042-0043].
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 it would be obvious to make the gap of Endoh have a depth of 10-12µm, which is a depth less than 25µm, as an art analogous depth teaching for the gap. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claims 28 and 30, Endoh does not expressly teach a plurality of actuators coupled to the edge ring, wherein the actuators are configured to pull down the edge ring to the baseplate.
Moriya teaches a substrate support 1 Fig. 1 comprising a baseplate 1, 2 with an edge ring 30 that is mechanically clamped to the baseplate via lift pin 39 and a lift pin drive device 37 that behaves as a drive/actuator device to lift the ring for substrate transfer, and to fix the ring against the interface 40 [0033-0037], which has a gap 40 that has a depth most preferably of 10µm-12µm [0042-0043].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Endoh, to have added the lift pin actuator as per the teachings of Moriya. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to be able to lift the ring for substrate transfer as desired. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Claims 5, 6, 11-17, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0029745 to Nagaiwa et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2004/0261946 to Endoh et al.
The teachings of Nagaiwa are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 5, Nagaiwa does not expressly teach a seal arrangement includes a third annular seal arranged between the first annular seal and the second annular seal, and wherein the third annual seal divides the interface into a first region and a second region.
Endoh expressly teaches that there can be two channels, as shown in 44a, 44b Fig. 6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to duplicate the number of interfaces and channels, as per the teachings of the Endoh to have two interfaces would result in Nagaiwa to have two interfaces and two channels. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as by duplicating the interfaces, a third seal in between the two interfaces would be formed.
In regards to Claim 6, Nagaiwa in view of Endoh teach at least one channel includes a first channel in fluid communication with the first region and a second channel in fluid communication with the second region, and wherein the first channel and the second channel are configured to separately receive the heat transfer gas, as it teaches two separate channels and two separate interface regions.
In regards to Claim 11, Nagaiwa does not expressly teach a controller configured to control the supply of the heat transfer gas to the interface to adjust a temperature of the edge ring.
Endoh teaches a controller 43 configured to control the supply of the heat transfer gas to the interface to adjust a temperature of the edge ring [0103, 0141, 0142, 0159].
Because it is known to provide a controller to a heat transfer gas to the interface, as taught by Endoh, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the supply of the heat transfer gas to the interface as taught by Nagaiwa to include the controller. One would be motivated to do so in order to adjust a temperature of the edge ring as well as giving control the processing procedures. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 12, Nagaiwa teaches a substrate support 50 Fig. 8 for a substrate processing chamber 2 Fig. 1, the substrate support comprising: a baseplate 51 Fig. 8; an edge ring 52, 55 mechanically clamped (via screw 56a [0088], or 52 clamped via 64, which is clamped by 24 and 18) to the baseplate; wherein a lower surface of the edge ring defines an interface 51D between the edge ring the baseplate; and at least one channel 51C in fluid communication with the interface and configured to supply a heat transfer gas to the interface [0035-0093].
Nagaiwa does not expressly teach the lower surface of the edge ring includes first and second annular grooves, with first and second seals that define the interface.
Endoh teaches a substrate support 11, 25 Fig. 1, 6, 7a, 7b for a substrate processing chamber 10, the substrate support comprising: a baseplate 11, 25; an edge ring 30 mechanically clamped to the baseplate (through the mechanism of electrostatic clamping of 25d, wherein mechanically is defined as through the mechanics of the electrostatic clamp); a seal arrangement (in the form of the physical contact between 30 and 25) located between the edge ring and the baseplate, wherein the seal arrangement is configured to define an interface (space of 44) between the edge ring and the baseplate; and at least one channel 46b in fluid communication with the interface and configured to supply a heat transfer gas [0137] to the interface [0094-0243].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the edge ring of Nagaiwa to make the interface formed in the edge ring, through grooves in the edge ring, as per the teachings of Endoh. 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, by making the recess in the edge ring instead of the base as an art analogous interface structure, grooves would be obvious in the lower surface of the edge ring.
Nagaiwa does not expressly teach first and second grooves.
Endoh expressly teaches that there can be two channels, as shown in 44a, 44b Fig. 6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to duplicate the number of interfaces and channels, as per the teachings of the Endoh to have two interfaces would result in Nagaiwa to have two interfaces and two channels and thus two grooves in the lower surface of the edge rings. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as by duplicating the interfaces, a third seal in between the two interfaces would be formed.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 13, Nagaiwa in view of Endoh teach at least one channel in fluid communication with the interface and configured to supply a heat transfer gas to the interface from the heat transfer gas source, as per the rejection of Claim 12 above.
In regards to Claim 14, Nagaiwa teaches the first and second seals comprise O-rings, as Nagaiwa teaches the interfaces has O-rings 51e that seal the interfaces, and thus would be applied to the duplicated grooves.
In regards to Claim 15, Nagaiwa teaches the first and second seals comprise an elastomer material dispensed within the grooves, as Nagaiwa teaches the interfaces has O-rings 51e that seal the interfaces, and would thus be applied to the duplicated grooves.
In regards to Claim 16, Nagaiwa in view of Endoh teaches a system Fig. 1 comprising the substrate support of claim 12 (as per the rejection of Claim 1 above) and further comprising the heat transfer gas source, Endoh [0058].
In regards to Claim 17, Nagaiwa does not expressly teach a controller configured to control the supply of the heat transfer gas to the interface to adjust a temperature of the edge ring.
Endoh teaches a controller 43 configured to control the supply of the heat transfer gas to the interface to adjust a temperature of the edge ring [0103, 0141, 0142, 0159].
Because it is known to provide a controller to a heat transfer gas to the interface, as taught by Endoh, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the supply of the heat transfer gas to the interface as taught by Nagaiwa to include the controller. One would be motivated to do so in order to adjust a temperature of the edge ring as well as giving control the processing procedures. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 29, Nagaiwa teaches a plurality of fasteners configured to mechanically clamp the edge ring to the substrate support [0088].
In regards to Claim 31, Nagaiwa in view of Endoh teach the at least one channel includes a first channel in fluid communication with the first region and a second channel in fluid communication with the second region, and wherein the first channel and the second channel are configured to separately receive respective heat transfer gases, as would be the result of duplicating the interfaces and channels of Nagaiwa and the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2021/0020488 to Jiong, which teaches an edge ring 123, fasteners 221, and a gas space beneath it.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights