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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/9/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference (e.g. Taiwanese Office Action) listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The amendment filed 2/4/2026 has been entered as correcting detail numbering in para 0035 and 0042-0043 from the originally filed drawings, as well as amending new detail numbering (i.e. 16a-16c) from previous detail numbering (i.e. 216a-c) to replacement figs. 1A-C.
Drawings
The replacement drawings of figs. 1A-C, 6, and 8-9 were received on 2/4/2026. These replacement drawings of figs. 6 and 8-9 are accepted, as is figs. 1A-C based on the Specification amendment filed 2/4/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of subject matter recited in claim 18. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claims 17 and 18 each recites “each of the plurality of fastening features comprises a countersunk holes, an aperture with a threaded portion that is configured to receive a cover, a threaded fastener, and a protective cover” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for two distinct ‘covers’ for each of the “fastening features”. Claims 19-22 are also rejected as depending on claim 18.
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 17-22 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.
New claims 17 and 18 each recites “each of the plurality of fastening features comprises a countersunk holes” (emphasis added), rendering each of the claims indefinite as to whether a single countersunk hole, plural countersunk holes, or at least one countersunk hole is being required. Claims 19-22 are also rejected as depending on claim 18.
New claims 17 and 18 each recites “each of the plurality of fastening features comprises a countersunk holes, an aperture with a threaded portion that is configured to receive a cover, a threaded fastener, and a protective cover” (emphasis added), rendering each of the claims indefinite as to whether two distinct ‘covers’ are intended, or the same ‘cover’.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15, and 17- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 8,562,798) in view of Sansoni et al (US 8,390,980).
With respect to claim 1, Brown discloses in fig. 1 a “vacuum chamber” (i.e. process chamber) comprising a substrate support comprising a pedestal [14] with an upper surface that supports a wafer (i.e. substrate) [16] (Abstract; col. 6, lines 48-62), wherein figs. 2-3 show two similar embodiments of the pedestal [14] containing an “electrode” (i.e. claimed “sacrificial plate”) [52] of a target material (col. 4, lines 20-23 and 7, lines 18-55). Fig. 2 depicts the pedestal having an upper surface embedded with the sacrificial plate [52] (col. 7, lines 18-24); fig. 3 depicts similarly as fig. 2 but the sacrificial plate [52] is supported on the upper surface of the pedestal [14] to contact the substrate [16] such that the sacrificial plate [52] is between the upper surface and the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52). Fig. 3 further depicts a “center conductor” (i.e. electrical conductor) [54] configured to contact a connection member formed in the sacrificial plate [52] from an electrical bias of a “RF generator” (i.e. bias source) [36] and/or [38] (i.e. (fig. 2; col. 7, lines 18-52). Fig. 3 also shows the pedestal [14] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor [54]) formed therein to fasten the sacrificial plate [52] to the upper surface of the pedestal [14].
However Brown is limited in that: 1) the sacrificial plate [52] having gas apertures extending through; and 2) gas outlets formed in the pedestal [14] are not specifically suggested.
Sansoni teaches in figs. 6A-D a “chuck assembly” (i.e. substrate support”) [124] comprising a “puck” [150] embedded with a “cooling plate” [601] to form a pedestal [150],[601] for supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) [S] in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber, in addition to the pedestal [150],[601] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor) in addition to bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] (Abstract; col. 1, lines 14-17 col. 3, lines 56-67; col. 4, lines 17-23 and 35-54; col. 5, lines 51-60; col. 13, lines 37-53), similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown. Sansoni further teaches in fig. 6B the pedestal [150],[601] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [159] near a “frontside surface” (i.e. upper surface) [206] of the pedestal [150],[601] (similar to fig. 2 of Brown) (col. 15, lines 35-46); and “gas holes” (i.e. claimed “gas apertures”) [605] extending through the sacrificial plate [159] for providing a “heat transfer gas” (i.e. claimed “processing gas”) [603] from a lower surface to an upper surface of sacrificial plate [159] (col. 15, lines 21-46), wherein the gas apertures [605] are aligned with gas outlets [632],[604] formed in the pedestal [150],[601] (col. 14, lines 38-49; col. 15, lines 29-34). Sansoni cites the advantages of the pedestal [150],[601] having the gas apertures [605] extending through the sacrificial plate [150] and gas outlets [632],[604] in the pedestal [150],[601] as reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading (col. 17, lines 47-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni as the pedestal [14] with the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown to gain the advantages of reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading.
In summary, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni has: Brown teaching in fig. 3 the mounting features for the sacrificial plate [52] at the upper surface of the pedestal [14] perpendicular to a backside surface of the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52), and Sansoni teaching in fig. 6B the gas apertures [605] formed through the sacrificial plate [159] to provide the heat transfer gas [603] to a backside of the substrate [S]. Thus the combination of references teaches the gas apertures [605] of Sansoni are then also formed through the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown in order to provide the heat transfer gas to the backside surface of the substrate [16] of Brown (as further supported by Sansoni’s fig. 3 showing the backside gas flowing through the sacrificial plate [159].
With respect to claim 2-4 and 6, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni has: Brown teaching in fig. 1 a target [18] of comprising Ta as target material facing the pedestal [14] (col. 6, lines 49-54), and teaches in fig. 3 the sacrificial plate [52] also comprises the target material of Ta (col. 7, lines 50-55), or alternatively the target [18] is Cu or Ti with the sacrificial plate [52] also then made of the Cu or Ti (col. 7, lines 50-55; col. 10, lines 58-67; col. 11, lines 1-15); and Sansoni teaches the sacrificial plate [159] is made of “any suitable conductive material, such as a metal or metal alloy” with examples being Al, Co, Ni, Au, Ag, Ti, and/or Si (col. 5, lines 2-4; col. 8, lines 3-19). Modified Brown further discloses the target material is “pure” (e.g. ~100%) (col. 1, lines 36-43; col. 12, lines 36-42). Despite Brown not specifying a particular grain size of the target material, it has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effect variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, B). In this case, one of ordinary skill would seek through routine experimentation to decrease the grain size (including 80 microns or less as claimed) of the target material in order to reduce or avoid electrical arcing when sputtering the target.
With respect to claims 5, 8-9, and 17, Sansoni further depicts 6B-6E each of the fastening features comprises a “counterbore” (i.e. claimed “countersunk hole”) [650] having an aperture with a threaded portion to receive a “plug” (i.e. claimed “protective cover”) [647], and the bolts [616] (col. 17, lines 11-14 and 61-67; col. 18, lines 1), wherein fig. 6B shows the bolts [616], wherein each of the bolts [616] is within threaded portions (e.g. each bolt [616] is a threaded fastener) (col. 13, lines 11-14 and 36-37). Fig. 6D shows a close-up of each bolt hole for each of the bolts [616] (col. 17, lines 61-62), the close-up showing the protective cover [647] with the threaded portion that is made of “the same material” as puck base [162] and received in a threaded portion for each of the bolts [616] (col. 18, lines 1-5); the puck base [162] is made of Al, Ti, and/or Si (col. 7, lines 36-39), which is the target material of the sacrificial plate [159] (col. 8, lines 3-19).
With respect to claim 7, Sansoni further depicts in figs. 6B and 6D the fastening features also include the bolt holes [602] for containing each of the bolts [616] (col. 13, lines 29-36; col. 17, lines 61-65), wherein fig. 6E depicts the bolt holes [602] within a plate divider region that extends laterally (via gas grooves [158]) from a first lateral edge through a center of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) to a second lateral edge (col. 15, lines 35-46).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Sansoni further depicts in fig. 6B a connection member to the sacrificial plate [159], similar to the connection member of Brown. Sansoni’s fig. 6B further teaches the connection member is capable of receiving a threaded portion of a conducting member formed on a lower surface of the sacrificial plate [159] (col. 15, lines 52-63).
With respect to claims 12-13 and 15, Sansoni further depicts in figs. 6B-6E the gas apertures [605] and the fastening features including bolts [616] and the bolt holes [602] are disposed within the plate divider regions (via gas grooves [158]) that extend laterally through a center of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) that is divided into at least two discrete regions (col. 7, lines 12-35; col. 15, lines 35-46). Fig. 6E further depicts “inner steps” (i.e. claimed “keying feature”) [610] capable of ensuring cooling plate [601] is installed on a “bellows flange” (i.e. claimed “a pedestal” [614] in a predetermine orientation.
With respect to claims 18 and 22, Brown discloses in fig. 1 a “vacuum chamber” (i.e. process chamber) comprising a substrate support comprising a pedestal [14] with an upper surface that supports a wafer (i.e. substrate) [16] (Abstract; col. 6, lines 48-62), wherein figs. 2-3 show two similar embodiments of the pedestal [14] containing an “electrode” (i.e. claimed “sacrificial plate”) [52] of a target material (col. 4, lines 20-23 and 7, lines 18-55). Fig. 2 depicts the pedestal having an upper surface embedded with the sacrificial plate [52] (col. 7, lines 18-24); fig. 3 depicts similarly as fig. 2 but the sacrificial plate [52] is supported on the upper surface of the pedestal [14] to contact the substrate [16] such that the sacrificial plate [52] is between the upper surface and the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52). Fig. 3 further depicts a “center conductor” (i.e. electrical conductor) [54] configured to contact a connection member formed in the sacrificial plate [52] from an electrical bias of a “RF generator” (i.e. bias source) [36] and/or [38] (i.e. (fig. 2; col. 7, lines 18-52). Fig. 3 also shows the pedestal [14] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor [54]) formed therein to fasten the sacrificial plate [52] to the upper surface of the pedestal [14].
However Brown is limited in that: 1) the sacrificial plate [52] having gas apertures extending through; and 2) gas outlets formed in the pedestal [14] are not specifically suggested.
Sansoni teaches in figs. 6A-D a “chuck assembly” (i.e. substrate support”) [124] comprising a “puck” [150] embedded with a “cooling plate” [601] to form a pedestal [150],[601] for supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) [S] in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber, in addition to the pedestal [150],[601] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor) in addition to bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] (Abstract; col. 1, lines 14-17 col. 3, lines 56-67; col. 4, lines 17-23 and 35-54; col. 5, lines 51-60; col. 13, lines 37-53), similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown. Sansoni further teaches in fig. 6B the pedestal [150],[601] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [159] near a “frontside surface” (i.e. upper surface) [206] of the pedestal [150],[601] (similar to fig. 2 of Brown) (col. 15, lines 35-46); and “gas holes” (i.e. claimed “gas apertures”) [605] extending through the sacrificial plate [159] for providing a “heat transfer gas” (i.e. claimed “processing gas”) [603] from a lower surface to an upper surface of sacrificial plate [159] (col. 15, lines 21-46), wherein the gas apertures [605] are aligned with gas outlets [632],[604] formed in the pedestal [150],[601] (col. 14, lines 38-49; col. 15, lines 29-34). Sansoni further depicts in figs. 6B-6E the gas apertures [605] and the fastening features including bolts [616] and the bolt holes [602] are disposed within the plate divider regions (via gas grooves [158]) that extend laterally through a center of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) that is divided into at least two discrete regions (col. 7, lines 12-35; col. 15, lines 35-46). Sansoni further depicts 6B-6E each of the fastening features comprises a “counterbore” (i.e. claimed “countersunk hole”) [650] having an aperture with a threaded portion to receive a “plug” (i.e. claimed “protective cover”) [647], and the bolts [616] (col. 17, lines 11-14 and 61-67; col. 18, lines 1), wherein fig. 6B shows the bolts [616], wherein each of the bolts [616] is within threaded portions (e.g. each bolt [616] is a threaded fastener) (col. 13, lines 11-14 and 36-37). Fig. 6D shows a close-up of each bolt hole for each of the bolts [616] (col. 17, lines 61-62), the close-up showing the protective cover [647] with the threaded portion that is made of “the same material” as puck base [162] and received in a threaded portion for each of the bolts [616] (col. 18, lines 1-5); the puck base [162] is made of Al, Ti, and/or Si (col. 7, lines 36-39), which is the target material of the sacrificial plate [159] (col. 8, lines 3-19). Sansoni cites the advantages of the pedestal [150],[601] having the gas apertures [605] extending through the sacrificial plate [150] and gas outlets [632],[604] in the pedestal [150],[601] as reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading (col. 17, lines 47-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni as the pedestal [14] with the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown to gain the advantages of reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading.
In summary, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni has: Brown teaching in fig. 3 the mounting features for the sacrificial plate [52] at the upper surface of the pedestal [14] perpendicular to a backside surface of the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52), and Sansoni teaching in fig. 6B the gas apertures [605] formed through the sacrificial plate [159] to provide the heat transfer gas [603] to a backside of the substrate [S]. Thus the combination of references teaches the gas apertures [605] of Sansoni are then also formed through the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown in order to provide the heat transfer gas to the backside surface of the substrate [16] of Brown (as further supported by Sansoni’s fig. 3 showing the backside gas flowing through the sacrificial plate [159].
With respect to claims 19-21, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni has: Brown teaching in fig. 1 a target [18] of comprising Ta as target material facing the pedestal [14] (col. 6, lines 49-54), and teaches in fig. 3 the sacrificial plate [52] also comprises the target material of Ta (col. 7, lines 50-55), or alternatively the target [18] is Cu or Ti with the sacrificial plate [52] also then made of the Cu or Ti (col. 7, lines 50-55; col. 10, lines 58-67; col. 11, lines 1-15); and Sansoni teaches the sacrificial plate [159] is made of “any suitable conductive material, such as a metal or metal alloy” with examples being Al, Co, Ni, Au, Ag, Ti, and/or Si (col. 5, lines 2-4; col. 8, lines 3-19). Modified Brown further discloses the target material is “pure” (e.g. ~100%) (col. 1, lines 36-43; col. 12, lines 36-42). Despite Brown not specifying a particular grain size of the target material, it has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effect variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, B). In this case, one of ordinary skill would seek through routine experimentation to decrease the grain size (including 80 microns or less as claimed) of the target material in order to reduce or avoid electrical arcing when sputtering the target.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 10-13 filed 2/4/2026 are addressed below.
Drawing Objections
Applicant’s explanation on p. 10 regarding replacement fig. 6 showing detail [575] instead of previous detail [533] is acceptable; the previous objection is withdrawn.
Claim 14 has been canceled; the previous objection is moot.
Applicant’s explanation on p. 10 regarding replacement figs. 6 and 8-9 removing detail [216] for the “planar structure” while keeping detail [216] showing the “substrate” is acceptable; the previous objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 has been canceled; the previous objection is moot.
112 Rejections
Claim 14 has been canceled; the previous 112(b) rejections are moot.
103 Rejections
On p. 11-12, Applicant argues for claim 1 that: 1) no motivation modify Brown with Sansoni due to different process chambers; and 2) Brown does not teach the claimed “sacrificial plate” but instead a conductive mesh buried inside the insulating layer.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding 1), as Applicant states in p. 12, Brown is directed to a physical vapor deposition (PVD) plasma reactor, the PVD plasma reactor utilizing a wafer support [14] that is an electrostatic chuck (Abstract; col. 7, lines 19-21); Sansoni specifically teaches an electrostatic chuck for supporting a substrate or wafer is used in a “plasma processing chamber” or reactor, such as “physical vapor deposition” (col. 4, lines 11-38). Thus Brown and Sansoni are directed to similar (if not the same) types of PVD plasma reactors, and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Brown with Sansoni for the benefits (e.g. “reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading” at col. 17, lines 47-60) taught by Sansoni.
Regarding 2), Brown merely suggests in fig. 2 the “electrode 52 such as a conductive mesh buried inside the insulating layer 50” (col. 17, lines 55-60); thus the electrode being mesh is merely a preferred embodiment compared with the solid structure (i.e. plate) when entirely buried in the insulating layer as shown in fig. 2, with “patents [being] relevant as prior art for all they contain” and suggested “examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiment”(MPEP 2123, I-II). In addition, fig. 3 (which is being relied upon for the rejection above) shows that the electrode [52] is not buried, but instead exposed to plasma; thus suggesting for the electrode to not be mesh but instead the solid object (i.e. plate) shown in fig. 3. As such, one of ordinary skill would still be motivated to modify Brown with Sansoni.
All other arguments on p. 13 are similarly directed towards the subject matter addressed above for claim 1 in the 103 Rejections and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Double Patenting Rejections
A Terminal Disclaimer was filed on 2/4/2026, and approved on 3/5/2026; the previous rejections are withdrawn.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights