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 .
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 depends from claim 19 which recites that the heat spreader is positioned between the heater and the electrode. However, claim 20 requires that the heat spreader and the electrode be at a same layer between the heater and the wafer. Claim 20 appears to require that the electrode and heat spread be at a different layer and at a same layer simultaneously which cannot be possible. It is believed that Applicant intended to make claim 20 depend from claim 15 which would remove the ambiguity and the claim will be examined as such. Applicant should amend the claim to overcome this ambiguity or provide the examiner which an explanation as to how the claim is not indefinite if the examiner’s interpretation of the claim is incorrect.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migata (US 2011/0229837) in view of Hatano (US 5,709,757).
With regard to claim 1, Migata teaches an electrostatic wafer chuck for holding and heating semiconductor wafers (paragraph 0033), the electrostatic wafer chuck comprising: a metal base (3, paragraph 0047); and a multi-layer ceramic plate (1) comprising: a bonding layer (7, paragraph 0041); a heater (17, paragraph 0057); a first dielectric (section of 5 positioned below heater 17, paragraph 0058) positioned between the heater (17) and the bonding layer (7); an electrode (23, paragraph 0063) configured to electrostatically hold a semiconductor wafer; a second dielectric (section of 5 above heater 17) positioned between the heater (17) and the electrode (23); a heat spreader (13, paragraph 0041) configured to uniformly distribute heat from the heater to the semiconductor wafer; and a third dielectric (section of 22 above electrode 23, paragraphs 0063-0065) positioned between the electrode and the semiconductor wafer.
Migata does not teach a temperature sensor.
Hatamo, in Figure 1, teaches an electrostatic chuck (30) with a base plate (21) and heater (26) similar to that which is taught by Migata (column 6, line 48- column 7, line 16). It is further taught that the device comprises a temperature sensor (37 & 38, column 7, lines 25-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata with Hatamo, by incorporating a temperature sensor as taught by Hatamo, into the device of Migata, for the purpose of providing a feedback signal to control the heater to maintain the temperature of the wafer and the chuck at a desired value that is ideal for wafer processing.
With regard to claims 2 & 5-7, Migata in view of Hatano discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses that the temperature sensor extends through the metal base and only partially through the multi-layer ceramic plate (as seen in Fig. 1 of Hatano) (re claim 2), wherein the heat spreader (Migata 13) is positioned between the heater (Migata, 17) and the electrode (Migata, 23) (as seen in Fig. 4 of Migata) (re claim 5), wherein the heat spreader (Migata, 13) is positioned between the second dielectric (Migata, section of 5 above heater 17) and a fourth dielectric (Migata, section of 22 which is below electrode 23) between the heat spreader and the electrode (re claim 6), wherein the second dielectric is positioned adjacent to the heater and the heat spreader, and wherein the fourth dielectric is positioned adjacent to the heat spreader and the electrode (as seen in Fig. 4 of Migata) (re claim 7).
With regard to claim 8, Migata teaches an electrostatic wafer chuck for holding and heating semiconductor wafers (paragraph 0033), the electrostatic wafer chuck comprising: a metal base (3, paragraph 0047); and a multi-layer ceramic plate (1) comprising: a bonding layer (7, paragraph 0041); a heater (17, paragraph 0057); a first dielectric (section of 5 positioned below heater 17, paragraph 0058) positioned between the heater (17) and the bonding layer (7); an electrode (23, paragraph 0063) configured to electrostatically hold a semiconductor wafer; a second dielectric (section of 5 above heater 17) positioned between the heater (17) and the electrode (23); a heat spreader (13, paragraph 0041) configured to uniformly distribute heat from the heater to the semiconductor wafer; and a third dielectric (section of 22 above electrode 23, paragraphs 0063-0065) positioned between the electrode and the semiconductor wafer.
Migata does not teach a temperature sensor extending through the metal base and into the multi-layer ceramic plate.
Hatamo, in Figure 1, teaches an electrostatic chuck (30) with a base plate (21) and heater (26) similar to that which is taught by Migata (column 6, line 48- column 7, line 16). It is further taught that the device comprises a temperature sensor extending through the metal base and into the multi-layer ceramic plate (37 & 38, column 7, lines 25-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata with Hatamo, by incorporating a temperature sensor as taught by Hatamo, into the device of Migata, for the purpose of providing a feedback signal to control the heater to maintain the temperature of the wafer and the chuck at a desired value that is ideal for wafer processing.
With regard to claims 9 & 12-14, Migata in view of Hatano discloses the device of claim 8, and further discloses that the temperature sensor extends only partially through the multi-layer ceramic plate (as seen in Fig. 1 of Hatano) (re claim 9), wherein the heat spreader (Migata 13) is positioned between the heater (Migata, 17) and the electrode (Migata, 23) (as seen in Fig. 4 of Migata) (re claim 12), wherein the heat spreader (Migata, 13) is positioned between the second dielectric (Migata, section of 5 above heater 17) and a fourth dielectric (Migata, section of 22 which is below electrode 23) between the heat spreader and the electrode (re claim 13), wherein the second dielectric is positioned adjacent to the heater and the heat spreader, and wherein the fourth dielectric is positioned adjacent to the heat spreader and the electrode (as seen in Fig. 4 of Migata) (re claim 14).
With regard to claim 15, Migata teaches a system for holding and heating semiconductor wafers (paragraph 0033), the system comprising an electrostatic wafer chuck, the electrostatic wafer chuck comprising: a metal base (3, paragraph 0047); and a multi-layer ceramic plate (1) comprising: a bonding layer (7, paragraph 0041); a heater (17, paragraph 0057); a first dielectric (section of 5 positioned below heater 17, paragraph 0058) positioned between the heater (17) and the bonding layer (7); an electrode (23, paragraph 0063) configured to electrostatically hold a semiconductor wafer; a second dielectric (section of 5 above heater 17) positioned between the heater (17) and the electrode (23); a heat spreader (13, paragraph 0041) configured to uniformly distribute heat from the heater to the semiconductor wafer; and a third dielectric (section of 22 above electrode 23, paragraphs 0063-0065) positioned between the electrode and the semiconductor wafer.
Migata does not teach that the electrostatic wafer chuck is operatively connected to a temperature control system.
Hatamo, in Figure 1, teaches an electrostatic chuck (30) with a base plate (21) and heater (26) similar to that which is taught by Migata (column 6, line 48- column 7, line 16). It is further taught that the device comprises a temperature sensor which is part of a temperature control system (37 & 38, column 7, lines 25-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata with Hatamo, by incorporating a temperature sensor as taught by Hatamo, into the device of Migata, for the purpose of providing a feedback signal to control the heater to maintain the temperature of the wafer and the chuck at a desired value that is ideal for wafer processing.
With regard to claims 16, 19 & 20, Migata in view of Hatano discloses the system of claim 15, and further discloses that the temperature sensor extends through the metal base and through only partially through the multi-layer ceramic plate (as seen in Fig. 1 of Hatano) (re claim 16), wherein the heat spreader (Migata 13) is positioned between the heater (Migata, 17) and the electrode (Migata, 23) (as seen in Fig. 4 of Migata) (re claim 19), wherein the heat spreader is electrically conductive, wherein the heat spreader and the electrode are a same layer positioned between the heater and the wafer (Migata, paragraph 0065 teaches that the electrode 23 may be formed of tungsten which is a metal with a high thermal conductivity and thus would necessarily act as a heat spreader) (re claim 20).
Claims 3, 10 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migata in view of Hatano as applied to claims 2, 8 & 16 above, and further in view of Willwerth (US 2009/0274590).
With regard to claim 3, Migata in view of Hatano teaches the device of claim 2.
Migata in view of Hatano does not teach the temperature sensor extends through the multi-layer ceramic plate and has a direct line of sight to the semiconductor wafer.
Willwerth, in Figures 2 & 4, teaches an electrostatic chuck device similar to Migata and Hatano wherein a temperature sensor (330) extends through a multi-layer ceramic plate and base has a direct line of sight to a semiconductor wafer (paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata in view of Hatano with Willwerth, by allowing a temperature sensor to extend to the surface near the wafer, for the purpose of allowing the system to control the temperature based on the wafer temperature to ensure that the wafer is at the correct temperature during processing.
With regard to claim 10, Migata in view of Hatano teaches the device of claim 8.
Migata in view of Hatano does not teach the temperature sensor extends through the multi-layer ceramic plate and has a direct line of sight to the semiconductor wafer.
Willwerth, in Figures 2 & 4, teaches an electrostatic chuck device similar to Migata and Hatano wherein a temperature sensor (330) extends through a multi-layer ceramic plate and base has a direct line of sight to a semiconductor wafer (paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata in view of Hatano with Willwerth, by allowing a temperature sensor to extend to the surface near the wafer, for the purpose of allowing the system to control the temperature based on the wafer temperature to ensure that the wafer is at the correct temperature during processing.
With regard to claim 17, Migata in view of Hatano teaches the system of claim 16.
Migata in view of Hatano does not teach the temperature sensor extends through the multi-layer ceramic plate and has a direct line of sight to the semiconductor wafer.
Willwerth, in Figures 2 & 4, teaches an electrostatic chuck device similar to Migata and Hatano wherein a temperature sensor (330) extends through a multi-layer ceramic plate and base has a direct line of sight to a semiconductor wafer (paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata in view of Hatano with Willwerth, by allowing a temperature sensor to extend to the surface near the wafer, for the purpose of allowing the system to control the temperature based on the wafer temperature to ensure that the wafer is at the correct temperature during processing.
Claims 4, 11 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migata in view of Hatano as applied to claims 1, 8 & 15 above, and further in view of Komino (US 5,584,971).
With regard to claim 4, Migata in view of Hatano teaches the device of claim 1.
Migata in view of Hatano does not teach that the temperature sensor is a fluoroptic temperature probe.
Komino, in Figure 1, teaches an electrostatic chuck with heater similar to Migata and Hatano wherein a temperature sensor (35) is a fluoroptic temperature probe (column 5, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata in view of Hatano with Momino, by forming the temperature sensor of Hatano as a fluoroptic temperature probe as taught by Komino, for the purpose of providing a temperature sensor which offers high accuracy in harsh environments.
With regard to claim 11, Migata in view of Hatano teaches the device of claim 8.
Migata in view of Hatano does not teach that the temperature sensor is a fluoroptic temperature probe.
Komino, in Figure 1, teaches an electrostatic chuck with heater similar to Migata and Hatano wherein a temperature sensor (35) is a fluoroptic temperature probe (column 5, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata in view of Hatano with Momino, by forming the temperature sensor of Hatano as a fluoroptic temperature probe as taught by Komino, for the purpose of providing a temperature sensor which offers high accuracy in harsh environments.
With regard to claim 18, Migata in view of Hatano teaches the system of claim 15.
Migata in view of Hatano does not teach that the temperature sensor is a fluoroptic temperature probe.
Komino, in Figure 1, teaches an electrostatic chuck with heater similar to Migata and Hatano wherein a temperature sensor (35) is a fluoroptic temperature probe (column 5, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Migata in view of Hatano with Momino, by forming the temperature sensor of Hatano as a fluoroptic temperature probe as taught by Komino, for the purpose of providing a temperature sensor which offers high accuracy in harsh environments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm 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, THIENVU TRAN can be reached at (571)270-1276. 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.
/Scott Bauer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838