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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has respectfully argued on Pg. 8, Para. 1 in the remarks filed on 10/22/2025 in regards to claim 1 that Suzuki teaches in “[Pg. 4, Para. 3] From this, it is clear that six electrode pads 73 are provided for the three pairs of driver electrodes 60 (i.e., six driver electrodes 60).” During the interview on 1/15/2025, applicant further clarified the argument as: Suzuki teaches 6 terminals and 3 electrodes. 6 terminals would not be less than 2 times the number of electrodes. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the argument. However, in light of the cited section of Suzuki, Suzuki in the same embodiment still reads upon the claims. Suzuki teaches 4 total terminals and 3 electrodes, electrode 50. x3 of the x4 terminals are connected to each of one side of x3 pairs of electrodes 60 and the other side of the x3 pair of electrodes is electrically connected to just x1 terminal (“The other side of each pair of driver electrodes 60 is electrically connected to another electrode pad 73”; [Pg. 4, Para. 3]). The previous rejection has been clarified to say x5 terminals instead of x2.
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) 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., JP2019216201A (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki) and in view of Cho et al., US Patent 11532497 (hereinafter referred to as Cho).
In regards to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a substrate holder (electrostatic chuck 100) comprising: a ceramic base member (ceramic member 10) having an upper surface (suction surface S1) and a lower surface (lower surface S2) facing the upper surface in an up-down direction (S1 to S2), the lower surface having a central region (middle region of Fig. 2) ([Fig. 2]); a plurality (x3) of electrodes (heater electrodes 50A-50C) embedded in the ceramic base member ([Fig. 3]); at least two conductive members (driver electrodes 60) arranged in a same plane (same position in the z-axis) and embedded in the ceramic base member ([Pg. 6, Para. 7] & [Fig. 2]); a plurality (x3) of connecting parts (heater-side via 71) electrically connecting the plurality of electrodes and the at least two conductive members such that each of the at least two conductive members is connected to at least one of the plurality of electrodes ([Pg. 3, Para. 13] & [Fig. 2]); a plurality (x5) of terminals (power supply terminal 74 in terminal hole 110; [Pg. 4, Para. 3] & [Fig. 2]) each of which is provided on at least one of the plurality of electrodes or the at least one conductive member ([Pg. 4, Para. 4], [Pg. 6, Para. 6], & [Fig. 2]) (Examiner’s Note: Suzuki teaches that there are x4 terminals connected to the x3 pairs of driver electrodes 60. Discussed below Cho provides a fifth connection through a cutout which would connect directly to a heater electrode 50. The direct connection would replace one of the Suzuki taught connections of “voltage from the power supply is applied to each heater electrode 50 via the power supply terminal 74, the electrode pad 73, the power supply side via 72, the driver electrode 60, and the heater side via 71”.), wherein a resistance value between a connecting part, of the plurality of connecting parts, connected to the at least one conductive member and a terminal, of the plurality of terminals, provided on the at least one conductive member (the via connected to the heater electrode 50 and the via connected to the power supply terminal 74) is smaller (five times) than a resistance value between both ends of the plurality of electrodes (resistance between one via connected to the driver electrode 60 and the other via in the heater electrode 50) ([Pg. 3, Para. 12]), and the number of the plurality of terminals (x2) is smaller than two times the number of the plurality of electrodes (x3) ([Fig. 2]); and each of the plurality of terminals extends downwardly from the central region (middle of Fig. 2) of the lower surface of the ceramic base member ([Fig. 2]), an opening or a cutout (without passing through the driver electrode 60) is provided in one of the at least two conductive members, and a terminal of the plurality of terminals is located in the opening of the cutout ([Pg. 6, Para. 6]). It is understood that the heater electrode is at least 5 times more resistive than the driving electrode because the driving electrode has a larger surface area than the winding/snaking heater electrode. The embodiment of a cutout provided on the driver electrode is not shown, but it is understood that a cutout or opening would be provided on the driver electrode to pass the separate power terminals for the heater electrode through the central region with the other power supply terminals.
Suzuki does not teach the terminal located in the opening or the cutout is electrically connected to another of the at least two conductive members via one of the plurality of electrodes and one of the plurality of connecting parts.
Cho teaches the terminal (220/420/520) ([Fig. 3]) located in the opening or the cutout (Fig. 8 central shaft) ([Fig. 8]) is electrically connected to another of the at least two conductive members (210/410/510) via one of the plurality of electrodes (electrode 212/412/512) and one of the plurality of connecting parts (vertical pegs 214/414/514) ([Fig. 3]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the terminal connections to the conductive member and the electrodes as taught by Cho. Cho teaches the voltage source connecting to the upper electrode and then connecting to the bottom electrode through pegs in Fig. 3, 5, & 8. Cho also shows other voltage source connections between the upper and lower electrode in Fig. 1-5 & 8 as other embodiments of creating a Faraday cage. Therefore, Suzuki's silence on the existence of the vias 71 in the embodiment with 2 pairs of power terminals could be any of the embodiments taught by Cho for creating a Faraday cage to reduce the possibility of the gases igniting. The motivation for doing so would be to create a discharge free Faraday cage within the chuck to reduce the risk of electrostatic discharge in the plasma due to the higher voltages [Col. 6, Ln. 23-26].
In regards to claim 2, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1. Suzuki does not explicitly disclose, but, Cho teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes and at least a part of the at least two conductive members are a mesh (wire mesh) obtained by weaving a wire of at least one kind of metal selected from the group consisting of: tungsten, molybdenum and an alloy including the molybdenum and/or the tungsten (molybdenum) ([Col. 3, Ln. 44-47]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the material as taught by Cho. The motivation for choosing the molybdenum with the wire mesh would be to incorporate a known material in a higher voltage resistant electrostatic chuck.
In regards to claim 5, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1. In addition, Suzuki further teaches wherein the ceramic base member has a shape of a disc (substantially circular) ([Pg. 3, Para. 4] & [Fig. 2]), and a sum of an area (cross-sectional area) of the at least two conductive members (driver electrode 60) has a value which is not less than 40% of an area (at least five times) of a virtual circle having a radius defined by an outer diameter of a greatest electrode, of the plurality of electrodes, of which outer diameter is greatest among the plurality of electrodes (cross-sectional area of the heater electrode 50) ([Pg. 3, Para. 12] & [Fig. 2]). As shown in Fig. 2, the driver electrode 60 is seen to encompass almost 100% of the same area that the heater electrode 50 exists in.
In regards to claim 6, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1. In addition, Suzuki further teaches wherein the ceramic base member has a shape of a disc (substantially circular) ([Pg. 3, Para. 4] & [Fig. 2]), and an area (cross-sectional area) of the at least two conductive members (driver electrode 60) is not less than 40% (at least five times) of a value obtained by dividing, by the number of the plurality of electrodes, an area of a virtual circle having a radius defined by an outer diameter of a greatest electrode, of the plurality of electrodes, of which outer diameter is greatest among the plurality of electrodes (cross-sectional area of the heater electrode 50) ([Pg. 3, Para. 12] & [Fig. 2]). As shown in Fig. 2, the driver electrode 60 is seen to encompass almost 100% of the same area that the heater electrode 50 exists in.
In regards to claim 7, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1. In addition, Suzuki further teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes is made of a same material (tungsten, molybdenum, platinum, or the like) as a material of the at least two conductive members ([Pg. 3, Para. 11-12]).
In regards to claim 8, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1 & 7. In addition, Suzuki further teaches wherein each of the plurality of connecting members has a via structure, or has a structure made of the same material (tungsten) and integrally formed with one of the plurality of electrodes and the at least two conductive members ([Pg. 4, Para. 6]).
In regards to claim 9, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1. In addition, Suzuki further teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes is made of a different material (Tungsten & Molybdenum) from a material of the at least two conductive members ([Col. 8, Ln. 14-25 and Ln. 41-45]). It is an engineering design choice to pick the heater electrode 50 to be of tungsten and the driver electrode 60 to be of molybdenum or any other different combination of the 3 suggested materials.
In regards to claim 10, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1. Suzuki does not explicitly disclose, but, Cho further teaches of the substrate holder (pedestal 128) further comprising a tubular shaft (shaft 126) joined to the lower surface of the ceramic base member (pedestal 128) ([Col. 9, Ln. 1-10] & [Fig. 9]), wherein the plurality of terminals is arranged on an inner side with respect to an outer diameter of the shaft ([Col. 9, Ln. 1-10] & [Fig. 6]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Cho for adding a shaft to the bottom surface. The motivation for doing so is to have a substrate support apparatus capable of working within a substrate processing chamber.
In regards to claim 11, Suzuki teaches a substrate holder (electrostatic chuck 100) comprising: a ceramic base member (ceramic member 10) having an upper surface (suction surface S1) and a lower surface (lower surface S2) facing the upper surface in an up-down direction (S1 to S2), the lower surface having a central region (middle region of Fig. 2) ([Fig. 2]); a plurality (x3) of electrodes (heater electrodes 50A-50C) embedded in the ceramic base member ([Fig. 3]); at least two conductive members (driver electrodes 60) arranged in a same plane (same position in the z-axis) and embedded in the ceramic base member ([Pg. 6, Para. 7] & [Fig. 2]); a plurality (x3) of connecting parts (heater-side via 71) electrically connecting the plurality of electrodes and the at least two conductive members such that each of the at least two conductive members is connected to at least one of the plurality of electrodes ([Pg. 3, Para. 13] & [Fig. 2]); a plurality (x5) of terminals (power supply terminal 74 in terminal hole 110; [Pg. 4, Para. 3] & [Fig. 2]) each of which is provided on at least one of the plurality of electrodes or the at least one conductive member ([Pg. 4, Para. 4], [Pg. 6, Para. 6], & [Fig. 2]) (Examiner’s Note: Suzuki teaches that there are x4 terminals connected to the x3 pairs of driver electrodes 60. Discussed below Cho provides a fifth connection through a cutout which would connect directly to a heater electrode 50. The direct connection would replace one of the Suzuki taught connections of “voltage from the power supply is applied to each heater electrode 50 via the power supply terminal 74, the electrode pad 73, the power supply side via 72, the driver electrode 60, and the heater side via 71”.), wherein a resistance value between a connecting part, of the plurality of connecting parts, connected to the at least one conductive member and a terminal, of the plurality of terminals, provided on the at least one conductive member (the via connected to the heater electrode 50 and the via connected to the power supply terminal 74) is smaller (five times) than a resistance value between both ends of the plurality of electrodes (resistance between one via connected to the driver electrode 60 and the other via in the heater electrode 50) ([Pg. 3, Para. 12]), and the number of the plurality of terminals (x2) is smaller than two times the number of the plurality of electrodes (x3) ([Fig. 2]); and each of the plurality of terminals extends downwardly from the central region (middle of Fig. 2) of the lower surface of the ceramic base member ([Fig. 2]), an opening or a cutout (without passing through the driver electrode 60) is provided in one of the at least two conductive members, and a terminal of the plurality of terminals is located in the opening of the cutout ([Pg. 6, Para. 6]), and a terminal, of the plurality of terminals, that is not located in the opening or the cutout is electrically connected (electrically connected; [Pg. 4, Para. 3]) to the other of the at least two conductive members via another of the plurality of electrodes or another of the plurality of connecting parts (“The other side of each pair of driver electrodes 60 is electrically connected to another electrode pad 73”; [Pg. 4, Para. 3]) (Examiner’s Note: 4 out of 5 of the terminals are not located within the cutout. The 1 terminal tied to the other side of the x3 pairs of driver electrodes would only be able to physically connect with one electrode. Therefore, the 2 of the 6 driver electrodes must be connected through the one electrode or through a heater electrode 50 and heater side via 71.). (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the heater electrode is at least 5 times more resistive than the driving electrode because the driving electrode has a larger surface area than the winding/snaking heater electrode. The embodiment of a cutout provided on the driver electrode is not shown, but it is understood that a cutout or opening would be provided on the driver electrode to pass the separate power terminals for the heater electrode through the central region with the other power supply terminals.)
Suzuki does not teach the terminal located in the opening or the cutout is electrically connected to another of the at least two conductive members via one of the plurality of electrodes and one of the plurality of connecting parts.
Cho teaches the terminal (220/420/520) ([Fig. 3]) located in the opening or the cutout (Fig. 8 central shaft) ([Fig. 8]) is electrically connected to another of the at least two conductive members (210/410/510) via one of the plurality of electrodes (electrode 212/412/512) and one of the plurality of connecting parts (vertical pegs 214/414/514) ([Fig. 3]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the terminal connections to the conductive member and the electrodes as taught by Cho. Cho teaches the voltage source connecting to the upper electrode and then connecting to the bottom electrode through pegs in Fig. 3, 5, & 8. Cho also shows other voltage source connections between the upper and lower electrode in Fig. 1-5 & 8 as other embodiments of creating a Faraday cage. Therefore, Suzuki's silence on the existence of the vias 71 in the embodiment with 2 pairs of power terminals could be any of the embodiments taught by Cho for creating a Faraday cage to reduce the possibility of the gases igniting. The motivation for doing so would be to create a discharge free Faraday cage within the chuck to reduce the risk of electrostatic discharge in the plasma due to the higher voltages [Col. 6, Ln. 23-26].
In regards to claim 12, Suzuki teaches wherein the terminal, of the plurality of terminals, that is not located in the opening or the cutout, is connected (electrically connected; [Pg. 4, Para. 3]) (Examiner’s Note: The 1 terminal tied to the other side of the x3 pairs of driver electrodes would only be able to physically connect with one electrode.) to one of the at least two conductive members except for the other of the at least two conductive members, and is electrically connected (is applied; [Pg. 4, Para. 4]) to the other of the at least two conductive members via another of the plurality of electrodes or another of the plurality of connecting parts (“voltage from the power supply is applied to each heater electrode 50 via the power supply terminal 74, the electrode pad 73, the power supply side via 72, the driver electrode 60, and the heater side via 71”; [Pg. 4, Para. 4]) (Examiner’s Note: 2 of the 6 driver electrodes must be connected through the one electrode or through a heater electrode 50 and heater side via 71.).
In regards to claim 13, Suzuki teaches wherein the terminal, of the plurality of terminals, that is not located in the opening or the cutout, is connected to one of the at least two conductive members, and is electrically connected (is applied; [Pg. 4, Para. 4]) to the other of the at least two conductive members via another of the plurality of electrodes or another of the plurality of connecting parts (“voltage from the power supply is applied to each heater electrode 50 via the power supply terminal 74, the electrode pad 73, the power supply side via 72, the driver electrode 60, and the heater side via 71”; [Pg. 4, Para. 4]) (Examiner’s Note: 2 of the 6 driver electrodes must be connected through the one electrode or through a heater electrode 50 and heater side via 71.).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., JP2019216201A (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki) in view of Cho et al., US Patent 11532497 (hereinafter referred to as Cho) and in further view of Fukazawa, JP2018005999 (hereinafter referred to as Fukazawa).
In regards to claim 3, most of the claim limitations have been taught above in claim 1 & 2. Suzuki and Cho do not explicitly disclose, but, Fukazawa further teaches wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of electrodes and a thickness of the at least one conductive member are in a range of 0.03mm to 0.2mm, except for an intersection point of the wire ([0051] e.g., upper heating resistor, “wire size of 0.1mm”, lower heating resistor 30, “wire size of 0.1mm”).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki and Cho to incorporate the teachings of Fukazawa for incorporating the taught thicknesses of the metals. The motivation for doing so is for even and controlled heating and determining the layer thickness within the ceramic member thickness of 1-10 mm as taught by Suzuki [Pg. 3, Para. 3].
Conclusion
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 SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838