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
Claim(s) 7 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 12-20 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen is silent to chucking electrodes in the substrate support and does not teach the DC bias voltage sources coupled to the same electrodes as a clamping network.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Sadjadi already teaches the first plurality of electrodes (136/140, Fig. 1) within the substrate support (132) which does not need to be retaught by Chen, and also notes that there are no “chucking electrodes” claimed in claim 1, despite what Applicant has argued. Additionally, Sadjadi already discloses the DC power supplies (138) coupled to the electrodes (136/140), which does not need to be retaught by Chen.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Signal detection module (input channels, fast data acquisition module], Fig. [0094]) in at least claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150311105 to Sadjadi in view of US 20140263182 to Chen.
Claim 1: Sadjadi discloses a plasma processing system, comprising: a substrate support assembly (126 [substrate support assembly], Fig. 1-4), comprising: a support base (130 [cooling base]); and a substrate support (132 [pixelated ESC]) disposed on the support base (130, Fig. 2), the substrate support (132) comprising a dielectric body (150/228 [puck]/dielectric body], para. [0038]) formed to define a substrate supporting surface (133 [workpiece surface]) and a plurality of first electrodes (136/140) disposed in the dielectric body (150/228) between the substrate supporting surface (133) and the support base (130);
The apparatus of Chen discloses further comprising: a first clamping network (138 [chucking power source], Fig. 4) electrically coupled to the plurality of first electrodes (136/140), the first clamping network (138) comprising one or more first direct current (DC) power supplies (138) configured to deliver a clamping voltage to the plurality of first electrodes (136/140) to electrostatically chuck a substrate to the substrate support (132).
However Sadjadi does not disclose and a bias module, comprising: a plurality of first waveform generators, each coupled to one or more of the plurality of first electrodes, wherein each of the plurality of first waveform generators is configured to establish a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform at the one or more first electrodes electrically coupled thereto, and each of the plurality of first waveform generators is independently controllable so that one or more characteristics of a PV waveform established by one of the plurality of first waveform generators can be adjusted relative to one or more characteristics of the PV waveforms established by other ones of the plurality of first waveform generators.
Chen discloses a bias module (74 [DC voltage source], Fig. 6), comprising: a plurality of first waveform generators (74a-74c [DC bias voltage sources]), each coupled to one or more of the plurality of first electrodes (22a-22c [electrode segments]), wherein each of the plurality of first waveform generators (74a-74c) is configured to establish a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform at the one or more first electrodes electrically coupled thereto (para. [0037]), and each of the plurality of first waveform generators (74a-74c) is independently controllable so that one or more characteristics of a PV waveform established by one of the plurality of first waveform generators can be adjusted relative to one or more characteristics of the PV waveforms established by other ones of the plurality of first waveform generators (para. [0037]). Chen discloses the above limitations for the purpose of being adjusted to improve radial uniformity (para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the bias module and components as taught by Chen with motivation to be adjust to improve radial uniformity.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen discloses wherein the plurality of first electrodes (136/140, Fig. 3-4, Sadjadi) are coplanar with one another (para. [0036]).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen discloses wherein the plurality of first electrodes (136/140, Fig. 3-4, Sadjadi) are arranged in a repeating pattern (grid/array) across a radius or width of the dielectric body (Fig. 3-4).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen discloses wherein the repeating pattern (grid/array of 136/140, Fig. 3-4, Sadjadi) comprises an array pattern, a sector pattern, a concentric ring pattern, a quadrant pattern, or a combination thereof (para. 0036]).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen discloses wherein the plurality of first electrodes (136/140, Fig. 3-4, Sadjadi) are arranged to provide for asymmetric biasing across a diameter or along a radius of a substrate disposed on the substrate supporting surface (para. [0036]). It is further noted that the above limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen discloses further comprising: a signal detection module (210 [pixel controller], Fig. 4, Sadjadi) configured to receive electrical data from a plurality of biasing pixel circuits (136/140 [Sadadi] & 74a-74c [Chen]), each biasing pixel circuit comprising one of the plurality of first waveform generators (74a-74c [Chen]) and the corresponding one or more first electrodes (136/140 [Sadjadi]) electrically coupled to thereto; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (412 [controller]) having instructions for analyzing the electrical data to determine one or more characteristics of a portion of a plasma sheath formed over the one or more first electrodes (para. [0063-0064], Sadjadi).
Claim 7: (Cancelled).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen discloses further comprising one or more blocking capacitors (440 [capacitors], Fig. 4, Sadjadi) respectively coupled between the first clamping network (138) and the plurality of first waveform generators (74a-74c, Chen).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadjadi in view of Chen as applied to claims 1-6, 8 above, and further in view of US 20160189994 to Sasaki, US 20210296098 to Cho.
Claims 9-10: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen does not disclose (claim 9) wherein the dielectric body of the substrate support is formed to define an edge ring supporting surface that at least partially surrounds the substrate supporting surface and the substrate support further comprises a plurality of second electrodes disposed in the dielectric body between the edge ring supporting surface and the support base; (claim 10) further comprising: a plurality of second waveform generators, each electrically coupled to one or more of the plurality of second electrodes and configured to establish a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform thereat, wherein each of the plurality of second waveform generators is independently controllable so that one or more characteristics of a PV waveform established by one of the plurality of first waveform generators can be adjusted relative to one or more characteristics of the PV waveforms established by other ones of the plurality of first waveform generators
Sasaki discloses (claim 9) wherein a dielectric body of the substrate support (25 [electrostatic chuck], Fig. 2) is formed to define an edge ring supporting surface (surface of 25b [annular outer peripheral portion]) that at least partially surrounds the substrate supporting surface (surface of 25a [central portion]) and the substrate support (25) further comprises a plurality of second electrodes (25d-1, 25d-2, Fig. 2) disposed in the dielectric body (25b) between the edge ring supporting surface (surface of 25b) and the support base (11 [susceptor]);
(claim 10) further comprising: a plurality of second waveform generators (28-1, 28-2 [DC power supplies], Fig. 2), each electrically coupled to one or more of the plurality of second electrodes (25d-1, 25d-2) and configured to establish a voltage (PV) waveform thereat (para. [0025]), wherein each of the plurality of second waveform generators is independently controllable so that one or more characteristics of a PV waveform established by one of the plurality of first waveform generators can be adjusted relative to one or more characteristics of the PV waveforms established by other ones of the plurality of first waveform generators (para. [0025]). Sasaki discloses the above limitations for the purpose of dealing with technical problems caused by the progress of microprocessing of the wafer (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the edge ring, electrodes, and second generators as taught by Sasaki with motivation to deal with technical problems caused by the progress of microprocessing of the wafer.
Regarding pulsed voltage capability (claim 10), Cho teaches the chucking electrodes (228, Fig. 2) for the edge ring (210) can be coupled to a pulsed DC power source (258) for the purpose of having minimum impact on the substrate (122) and direct voltage control (para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the voltage requirements as taught by Cho with motivation to have minimum impact on the substrate and direct voltage control.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Chen, Sasaki, Cho further comprising a radio-frequency (RF) generator (116 [RF power source], Fig. 1, Sadjadi) electrically coupled to: a chamber lid or the support base, wherein the RF generator is configured to deliver an RF signal used to ignite and maintain the plasma; or a plasma generator assembly (120 [plasma applicator]) configured to generate an electromagnetic field used to ignite and maintain the plasma (para. [0026-0027]).
Claims 12-20: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180226225 discloses a substrate support (104, Fig. 1) on a support base (106), a plurality of electrodes (122 [pins]), each connected to a plurality of pulsed voltage generators (702-1-702-4, Fig. 7), independently controllable (para. [0028]), with an edge ring (150) also having a pulsed voltage generator (para. [0036]).
US 20230087307 discloses a substrate support (105, Fig. 1) on a support base (107), a plurality of electrodes (104, 115), each connected to a plurality of pulsed voltage generators (150, Fig. 7), independently controllable (para. [0044]), with an edge ring (114) also having a pulsed voltage generator (para. [0044]).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718