DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (12/28/2022), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-34) were examined in a Non-Final on 6/10/2025. A Final office action in response to Applicant’s submission of 9/4/2025 was mailed on 12/30/2025. Claims were amended, so that claims 1-11, 13-28 and 30-34 were examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim number 34 is assigned to two claims appearing sequentially. This should be corrected. Claims pending for examination therefore are 1-11, 13-28 and 30-36.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 113 rejections are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kiyama’s disclosure related to semiconductor wafer cannot be imputed to Zhang’s dielectric window.
In response it is noted that stress is caused by thermal load in both the situations on a similar structural element (plate shaped) and belongs to similar field of endeavor. As discussed below Zhang discloses that uneven temperature distribution could crack the window, thus implicitly recognizing the generation of stress.
Applicant did not explain why the teaching Kiyama could not be used in Zhang, except to say that they are different components.
Regarding “matrix’, as stated before allows data to be ordered in rectangular form and by itself does not point to any algorithm or procedure. The specification does not disclose any algorithm or procedure involving matrix.
Further, there are numerous references, where stress generated in dielectric window and methods of reducing or their elimination are noted as being desirable. Setton et al is cited in this office action.
Several other references, not relied upon in the main rejection, were cited before and some more are being cited in this office action.
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 17 and 34 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
These claims recite first, second, third and fourth matrix based on temperatures in order to determine stress. The matrix appears to be a mapping of parameters for zones whose temperature is detected.
There is no disclosure of how second, third or fourth matrices are obtained and how they help in determination of stress. The disclosure of Fig 4A-4C and related disclosure in the specification is vague and inadequate to explain matrix operations to estimate stress distribution clearly.
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 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.
Claims 1-11, 13-28 and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 20190148118) in view of Makoto Kiyama (US 5985678) and Setton et al (US 20130292055).
Zhang et al disclose a component of the plasma chamber which is a dielectric window (Fig 1, 1100), a coil arranged on the dielectric window to generate plasma (1310, 1320), a plenum arranged on the dielectric window to flow a coolant (1200), a coil driving circuit (Para 34) and plurality of temperature sensors (1400) disposed to monitor different zones of the dielectric window.
Zhang et al disclose that electromagnetic energy increases window temperature (Para 35) and uneven temperature is detrimental to the dielectric window and may cause it to crack (Para 05, 06, 36). Thus, Zhang implicitly recognizes generation of stress (cracking would be caused by excessive stress).
Zhang et al do not disclose a controller estimating stress on the dielectric window from the temperature distribution detected by the plurality of temperature sensors.
Makoto Kiyama as discussed above, discloses a system (Fig 9) for estimating stress on a component of a processing chamber during a process,
the system comprising: a plurality of sensors (11, 12, 13 being radiation thermometers) configured to sense temperatures at a plurality of locations of the component (21 being a semiconductor wafer) during the process; and
a controller (computer in Fig 9) configured to: interpolate the temperatures to estimate a temperature distribution (abstract) across the component; and estimate the stress on the component during the process (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the teaching developed by Makoto Kiyama to determine stress on the dielectric window in order to have it below a safe limit.
Additionally, Setton et al disclose a plasma processing apparatus having coils (Fig 1) on top to allow electromagnetic energy to pass through dielectric window for plasma and disclose generation of stress (Para 38-39) from the temperature gradient generated from thermal loads. Setton et al further disclose plurality of sensor to monitor temperature of the window and forced air cooling (Para 25).
Regarding the limitation of matrix as discussed below matrix notation in this case is merely a mapping of temperature distribution disposed in the form of a matrix. Makoto Kiyama teaches determination of stress distribution on the component determined from the temperature distribution (See at least Kiyama Col 4 In 20-31). Similarly control of stress by controlling temperature is discussed both in Zhang et al , Kayama and Setton et al.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 19-21 the process controls the stress to prevent generation of slip (Kiyama Col 2 In 51-Col 3 In 10).
Regarding claims 5 and 22 heating means is used to determine and control temperature distribution (Kiyama Col 8 In 24-58).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 23-25 curve filling for data determined from plurality of zones is disclosed (Kiyama Fig 4, 6-8 and Col 4 In 62- Col 5 In 4, Col 6 In 28-30 and Col 7 In 5-15).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 26-27, independent temperature control elements and corresponding temperature sensers are disclosed in Kiyama Fig 9. This points to heat zones corresponding to sensor’s location since having one sensor to a distinct zone would be efficient and obvious.
Regarding claims 11 and 28 sensors are disposed on the half portion where the component (semiconductor wafer) is axisymmetric.
Regarding claims 17 and 34 as best understood in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
as discussed before matrix notation in this case is merely a mapping of temperature distribution disposed in the form of a matrix. Makoto Kiyama teaches determination of stress distribution on the component determined from the temperature distribution (See at least Kiyama Col 4 In 20-31).
Claims 13 and 30 are taught by Zhang et al.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 31-33, Makoto Kiyama teaches determination of stress at each point and direction tangential or radial on the component (See at least Fig 4-8 and their description).
Regarding claim 35 (corrected from 34) coils are disclosed in Zhang and may contribute to thermal load from electromagnetic energy as discussed above.
Regarding claim 36 discloses cooling is disclosed in Zhang.
Claim 18 is rejected with claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 20110088848) discloses a dielectric window experiencing stress due to temperature gradient and cooling (Abstract Fig 1 and Para 19 and 20).
McChesney et al (US 20130228283) discloses a dielectric window experiencing stress due to temperature gradient and cooling (Abstract Fig 4A-6 and Para 36 and 48).
Wicker et al (US 5863376) discloses a dielectric window experiencing stress due to temperature gradient and cooling (Abstract and Col 7 lines 42-59).
Sakka et al (JP 2015022855) discloses a dielectric window experiencing stress due to temperature gradient and cooling (Abstract, Fig 6 and the Description).
Shang et al (CN 204668434) discloses a dielectric window experiencing stress due to temperature gradient (Description).
Akira Sato (CN 106252190) discloses a dielectric window experiencing stress due to temperature gradient and cooling (Description).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights