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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 7 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 12-20 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Dorf and Fairbairn in addition to previously relied on references below.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "bias module" in the claim. The specification and drawings show that the “bias module” includes “a plurality of first PV modules (196), one or more second PV modules (197) and a plurality of clamping networks (116, para. [0083], PGPub). It is unclear if the bias module recited in claim 1 includes the “first clamping network” or not. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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 20200234923 to Dorf and further in view of US 20190157040 to Fairbairn.
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 Sadjadi discloses further comprising: a first clamping network (138 [chucking power source], Fig. 4) electrically coupled to each of the plurality of first electrodes (136), 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.
Dorf teaches a bias module (150/816, Fig. 8A), comprising: a first clamping network (816 [high voltage module], para. [0093]), a first waveform generator (150 [pulsed voltage waveform generator, PVWG], para. [0093]), each coupled to one or more of the plurality of first electrodes (804 [one or more biasing electrodes], para. [0078]), wherein the first waveform generator (150) is configured to establish a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform at the one or more first electrodes (804) electrically coupled thereto, for the purpose of controlling the characteristics of a pulsed voltage waveform established at a biasing electrode positioned within a processing chamber of the plasma processing system (para. [0031]).
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 Dorf with motivation to control the characteristics of a pulsed voltage waveform established at a biasing electrode positioned within a processing chamber of the plasma processing system.
Regarding a plurality of waveform generators, Fairbairn teaches there can be a plurality of first waveform generators (para. [0055]), each coupled to one or more of the plurality of first electrodes (para. [0096]); 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 (para. [0091]), for the purpose of achieving plasma density uniformity (para. [0091]).
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 optimization and options of multiple waveform generators coupled to one or more electrodes with optional controllable aspects as taught by Fairbairn with motivation to achieving plasma density uniformity.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Sadjadi in view of Dorf, Fairbairn 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 Dorf, Fairbairn 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 Dorf, Fairbairn 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 Dorf, Fairbairn 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 Dorf, Fairbairn 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] & 804 [Dorf]), each biasing pixel circuit comprising one of the plurality of first waveform generators (150 [Dorf] and Fairbairn) 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 Dorf, Fairbairn 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 (150, Dorf).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadjadi in view of Dorf, Fairbairn 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 Dorf, Fairbairn 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 Dorf, Fairbairn, 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]).
US 20200243303 discloses one or more electrodes (112, Fig. 1) electrically coupled to a high voltage module (155) providing a static DC voltage for chucking (para. [0019]) and coupled to a power generator (150) which can provide a shaped pulsed DC bias power (para. [0022]).
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
Prosecution Insights