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) 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19-20 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 bonding layer aluminum foil, 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. 2012/0103257 to Rasheed et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0101082 to Yokoyama et al and United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni 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) 1, 3-7, 11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2012/0103257 to Rasheed et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0101082 to Yokoyama et al and United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Rasheed teaches a substrate support assembly 120 Fig. 1, comprising: an aluminum cooling bottom plate 128 [0028]; a ceramic top plate 126 [0026]; an aluminum foil bond layer 112 between the ceramic top plate and the aluminum cooling bottom plate, the ceramic top plate in direct physical contact with the aluminum foil bond layer (as shown in Fig. 1), and the aluminum foil bond layer in direct physical contact with the aluminum cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 1), and a shaft 122, 124 coupled to the aluminum cooling bottom plate at a side of the aluminum cooling bottom plate opposite the aluminum foil bond layer [0023-0052].
Rasheed does not expressly teach the metal bond layer, bottom plate and ceramic top plate have the same outer perimeter.
Yokoyama teaches a substrate support assembly 1 Fig. 1A, 1B comprising an aluminum cooling bottom plate 4 [0068], a ceramic top plate 7 [0067], a metal bond layer 3 between the ceramic top plate, wherein the bottom plate, the ceramic top plate, and the metal bond all have the same outer perimeter (i.e., the perimeters all have the same outer perimeter.) [063-0221].
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the outer perimeter of the ceramic/electrostatic chuck, the aluminum foil layer, and the conductive base that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the same outer perimeter shape of the substrate support/electrostatic chuck as expressly taught by Yokoyama to the substrate support of Rasheed. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Rasheed in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach the shaft is detachable by a plurality of bolts.
Sansoni teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 6B, comprising: a cooling bottom plate 603,608; a ceramic top plate 162 [0052]; a raised portion 638 between the ceramic top plate and the cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 6B), the ceramic top plate in direct contact with the raised portion, and the raised portion in direct contact with the cooling bottom plate (as it is formed by the cooling bottom plate); and a detachable shaft 110, 112 coupled to the cooling bottom plate by a plurality of bolts 615 at a side of the cooling bottom plate opposite to the top surface 638 and an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate [0033-0102].
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 one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama with its fixed shaft with the detachable shaft of Sansoni, as an art analogous shaft attachment to a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Rasheed teaches the ceramic top plate has an electrode 138 therein [0027] but does not expressly teach that the ceramic top plate also has heater elements.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate 126 Fig. 5A has heater elements 502 and an electrode 159 therein.
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 one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and put the heater in the ceramic top plate Sansoni, as an art analogous heater in a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Rasheed teaches the aluminum cooling bottom plate includes cooling channels 152 therein [0041].
In regards to Claim 5, Rasheed in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves in a bottom surface thereof.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves 632, 204, 605 (which supplies to 158) in a bottom surface thereof which allows for the use of a heat transfer gas which to regulate the rate of heat transfer between the puck and the substrate [0040].
As it is known to provide a gas grooves on a top surface of the ceramic top plate, as taught by Sansoni, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rasheed in view of Yokoyama as taught by Sansoni to include gas grooves to the top surface of the ceramic plate. One would be motivated to do so in order to regulate the rate of heat transfer between the puck and the substrate. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 6, Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni teaches an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Rasheed teaches a cover ring 201 Fig. 2A on the ceramic top plate comprising a metal or a ceramic material [0038].
In regards to Claim 11, Rasheed teaches a system Fig. 1, 2A, comprising: a chamber 100; a plasma source 134, 130 within or coupled to the chamber [0032-0034]; and an electrostatic chuck 126 [0027] within the chamber, the electrostatic chuck comprising: an aluminum cooling bottom plate 128 [0028]; a ceramic top plate 127 [0027]; an aluminum foil bond layer 112 between the ceramic top plate and the aluminum cooling bottom plate, the ceramic top plate in direct physical contact with the aluminum foil bond layer (as shown in Fig. 1), and the aluminum foil bond layer in direct physical contact with the aluminum cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 1) [0023-0052].
Rasheed does not expressly teach the metal bond layer, bottom plate and ceramic top plate have the same outer perimeter.
Yokoyama teaches a substrate support assembly 1 Fig. 1A, 1B comprising an aluminum cooling bottom plate 4 [0068], a ceramic top plate 7 [0067], a metal bond layer 3 between the ceramic top plate, wherein the bottom plate, the ceramic top plate, and the metal bond all have the same outer perimeter (i.e., the perimeters all have the same outer perimeter.) [063-0221].
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the outer perimeter of the ceramic/electrostatic chuck, the aluminum foil layer, and the conductive base that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the same outer perimeter shape of the substrate support/electrostatic chuck as expressly taught by Yokoyama to the substrate support of Rasheed. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Rasheed in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach the shaft is detachable by a plurality of bolts.
Sansoni teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 6B, comprising: a cooling bottom plate 603,608; a ceramic top plate 162 [0052]; a raised portion 638 between the ceramic top plate and the cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 6B), the ceramic top plate in direct contact with the raised portion, and the raised portion in direct contact with the cooling bottom plate (as it is formed by the cooling bottom plate); and a detachable shaft 110, 112 coupled to the cooling bottom plate by a plurality of bolts 615 at a side of the cooling bottom plate opposite to the top surface 638 and an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate [0033-0102].
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 one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama with its fixed shaft with the detachable shaft of Sansoni, as an art analogous shaft attachment to a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 13, Rasheed teaches the ceramic top plate has an electrode 138 therein [0027] but does not expressly teach that the ceramic top plate also has heater elements.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate 126 Fig. 5A has heater elements 502 and an electrode 159 therein.
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 one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and put the heater in the ceramic top plate Sansoni, as an art analogous heater in a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 14, Rasheed teaches the aluminum cooling bottom plate includes cooling channels 152 therein [0041].
In regards to Claim 15, Rasheed in view of Yokoyama does not expressly teach the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves in a bottom surface thereof.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves 632, 204, 605 (which supplies to 158) in a bottom surface thereof which allows for the use of a heat transfer gas which to regulate the rate of heat transfer between the puck and the substrate [0040].
As it is known to provide a gas grooves on a top surface of the ceramic top plate, as taught by Sansoni, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rasheed in view of Yokoyama as taught by Sansoni to include gas grooves to the top surface of the ceramic plate. One would be motivated to do so in order to regulate the rate of heat transfer between the puck and the substrate. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni teaches an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above.
In regards to Claim 17, Rasheed teaches a cover ring 201 Fig. 2A on the ceramic top plate comprising a metal or a ceramic material [0038].
In regards to Claim 20, Rasheed teaches the aluminum cooling bottom plate is a metal cooling bottom plate, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2012/0103257 to Rasheed et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0101082 to Yokoyama et al and United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0225652 to Tran et al.
The teachings of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
In regards to Claims 2 and 12, Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni does not expressly teach the detachable shaft is a metal shaft.
Tran teaches that a shaft 180; 222 of a pedestal can be made out of aluminum, a metal [0023; 0012-0043].
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 shaft analogous to that of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni out of metal, as taught by Tran, 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 Claims 2 and 12.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2012/0103257 to Rasheed et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0101082 to Yokoyama et al and United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0133258 to Miwa et al.
The teachings of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
In regards to Claims 9 and 19, Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni does not expressly teach the bond layer is a silicone bond layer, an organic bond layer, or an aluminum foil or that the aluminum foil has a thickness in the range of 50 - 500 microns.
Miwa teaches a bond layer 23 or 25, which is made out of aluminum which makes a sheet layer of 200 µm/microns, i.e., an aluminum foil [0132, 0133; 0117-0255].
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 metal foil in a substrate support analogous to that of Rasheed in view of Yokoyama and Sansoni out of aluminum foil with a thickness of 200µm, as taught by Miwa, 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 the claims.
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
Prosecution Insights