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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12-13, 19 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 Tamura in addition to previously relied on references below.
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, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220005723 to Panavalappil in view of US 20210013063 to Tamura.
Claims 1, 10-11: Panavalappil discloses an electrostatic chuck (ESC), comprising: a substrate (100 [electrostatic chuck], Fig. 1-2) with a first surface (112 [top surface], Fig. 2), wherein the first surface (112) has a first surface roughness (Fig. 2); and a plurality of mesas (115 [mesas]) extending up from the first surface (112) of the substrate (100), wherein the plurality of mesas (115) each include a second surface (116 [top surface]), wherein the second surface (116) has a second surface roughness (Fig. 2),
However Panavalappil does not explicitly wherein the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness both have an average surface roughness Ra of approximately 0.3um or lower; (claim 10) wherein the first surface roughness is substantially equal to the second surface roughness; (claim 11) wherein the first surface roughness is different than the second surface roughness.
Yet, Panavalappil teaches where Ra is interpreted to be in microinches, as measured by the profilometer in para. [0052], and surface roughness is in some embodiments to be 10-25 Ra which is less than 0.3 um, and ranges are given for the first and second surfaces, for the purpose of providing for more efficient heat transfer between the substrate support mesas and the wafer (para. [0050]).
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 limitations above as taught by Panavalappil with motivation to provide for more efficient heat transfer between the substrate support mesas and the wafer.
The apparatus of Panavalappil does not disclose a plurality of grooves into the first surface of the substrate, the plurality of grooves intervening with the plurality of mesas.
However Tamura discloses a plurality of grooves (28b [inner diffusion portion], Fig. 5, 3-4) into the first surface (21a [mounting surface]) of the substrate (21 [bast portion]), the plurality of grooves (28b) intervening with the plurality of mesas (25 [second protrusions]), for the purpose of improving conductance of the entire inner region (F2, para. [0041]).
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 plurality of grooves as taught by Tamura with motivation to improve conductance of the entire inner region.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Panavalappil in view of Tamura discloses wherein the second surface (116, Fig. 2, Panavalappil) is domed (para. [0036] where some of the shape options are domed).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Panavalappil in view of Tamura discloses wherein the second surface (116, Fig. 2, Panavalappil) is coupled to the first surface (112) by substantially vertical sidewalls (Fig. 2, para. [0036]).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Panavalappil in view of Tamura discloses wherein the plurality of grooves (28b, Fig. 5, 3-4, Tamura) is a plurality of gas grooves (28b, para. [0041]).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Panavalappil in view of Tamura discloses further comprising: a seal band (150/130 [outer band and inner band], Fig. 2-3, Panavalappil) towards a perimeter of the of the substrate (100), wherein the seal band (150/130) has a third surface roughness, wherein the third surface roughness appears to be less than the second surface roughness (para. [0051]).
Claim(s) 2-5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panavalappil in view of Tamura as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12 above, and further in view of US 20210006182 to Maeta.
Claims 2-5, 9: The apparatus of Panavalappil in view of Tamura does not explicitly disclose (claim 2) wherein the plurality of mesas have a non-uniform height; (claim 3) wherein a first mesa towards a center of the substrate has a first height, and wherein a second mesa towards an edge of the substrate has a second height that is different than the first height; (claim 4) wherein the first height is greater than the second height; (claim 5) wherein the first height is less than the second height; (claim 9) wherein a height of each of the plurality of mesas is up to approximately 15µm.
However Maeta teaches (claim 2) wherein the plurality of mesas (22 [projection portions], Fig. 7-8) have a non-uniform height (see Fig. 7-8); (claim 3) wherein a first mesa (towards center 22) towards a center of the substrate has a first height (Fig. 7-8), and wherein a second mesa (towards edge 22) towards an edge of the substrate has a second height that is different than the first height (Fig. 7-8, para. [0071]); (claim 4) wherein the first height is greater than the second height (Fig. 8); (claim 5) wherein the first height is less than the second height (Fig. 7); (claim 9) wherein a height of each of the plurality of mesas is up to approximately 15µm (para. [0071] where height differences are taught in ranges which 15µm falls within); for the purpose of controlling a shape of a projection portion for attracting the plate-shaped sample on the placement surface of the base body (para. [0011]).
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 limitations and options as taught by Maeta with motivation to control a shape of a projection portion for attracting the plate-shaped sample on the placement surface of the base body.
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090097184 to Buchberger in view of US 20210013063 to Tamura.
Claim 13: Buchberger discloses an electrostatic chuck (ESC) (200 [electrostatic chuck assembly], Fig. 2), comprising: a substrate (202 [puck]) with a center and an edge (Fig. 2); a first mesa (one 220 [mesa]) proximate the center of the substrate (Fig. 2), wherein the first mesa (one 220) has a first shape and a first height (Fig. 2); and a second mesa (another 220) proximate the edge of the substrate (Fig. 2), wherein the second mesa (another 220) has a second shape and a second height (Fig. 2), and wherein the first shape is different than the second shape (para. [0026] where 220’s can be combinations of different shapes listed) and/or the first height is different than the second height.
However Buchberger does not disclose a groove intervening between the first mesa and the second mesa.
However Tamura discloses a groove (28b [inner diffusion portion], Fig. 5, 3-4) intervening between the between the first mesa (one 25 [second protrusions]) and the second mesa (another 25), for the purpose of improving conductance of the entire inner region (F2, para. [0041]).
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 a groove as taught by Tamura with motivation to improve conductance of the entire inner region.
Claim 15: Buchberger discloses wherein the first shape has a rectangular cross-section, and wherein the second shape has a domed cross-section (para. [0026] where 220’s can be combinations of different shapes listed).
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchberger in view of Tamura as applied to claims 13, 15 above, and further in view of US 20100039747 to Sansoni.
Claims 14, 16: The apparatus of Buchberger in view of Tamura does not disclose (claim 14) wherein the first height is larger than the second height; (claim 16) wherein a domed surface of the second shape is connected to the substrate by substantially vertical sidewalls.
However Sansoni discloses (claim 14) wherein the first height is larger than the second height (para. [0051] where heights and sizes are varied options); (claim 16) wherein a domed surface of the second shape is connected to the substrate by substantially vertical sidewalls (multiple shapes disclosed which reads on the limitation, para. [0051], [0063]); for the purpose of allowing a heat transfer gas for thermal coupling between the chuck and substrate and temperature control (para. [0007]).
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 options above as taught by Sansoni with motivation to allow a heat transfer gas for thermal coupling between the chuck and substrate and temperature control.
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchberger in view of Tamura as applied to claims 13, 15 above, and further in view of US 20220005723 to Panavalappil.
Claims 17, 18: The apparatus of Buchberger in view of Tamura does not disclose (claim 17) wherein the substrate has a first surface roughness, and wherein top surfaces of the first mesa and the second mesa have a second surface roughness, and wherein the first surface roughness is substantially equal to the second surface roughness; (claim 18) wherein the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness have an average surface roughness Ra that is approximately l um or less.
However Panavalappil discloses (claim 17) wherein the substrate (100 [electrostatic chuck], Fig. 2) has a first surface roughness (112 [top surface]), and wherein top surfaces of the first mesa and the second mesa (116 [top surfaces] of 115 [mesas]) have a second surface roughness (para. [0051]), and wherein the first surface roughness is substantially equal to the second surface roughness (para. [0011], [0051]); (claim 18) wherein the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness have an average surface roughness Ra that is approximately l um or less (para. [0052]); for the purpose of providing for efficient heat transfer (para. [0050]).
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 limitations above as taught by Panavalappil with motivation to provide for efficient heat transfer.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210287924 to Li in view of US 20210013063 to Tamura.
Claim 19: The method of Li discloses a method of forming an electrostatic chuck (ESC), comprising: polishing a first surface of a substrate (para. [0045]); forming a plurality of mesas (425 [protrusions]) into the first surface (420 [recessed ledge]) of the substrate (407 [first chuck body]) with a laser ablation process (para. [0061]);
However Li does not disclose and forming a gas groove into the substrate between mesas.
Tamura teaches forming a plurality of gas grooves (28 [diffusion portion], Fig. 5) into the substrate (21 [base portion]) the plurality of gas grooves (28) intervening with the plurality of mesas (24/25 [protrusions]) for the purpose of diffusing the heat transfer gas along the circumferential direction of the conductance band (para. [0036]).
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 forming the gas grooves as taught by Tamura with motivation to diffuse the heat transfer gas along the circumferential direction of the conductance band.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Tamura as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 20200357947 to Chen.
Claim 20: The method of Li in view of Tamura does not disclose wherein the laser ablation process is done with a picosecond pulse frequency laser or greater.
However Chen teaches using a picosecond pulsed laser for a laser ablation process (para. [0046]) for the purpose of forming a desired pattern on the substrate (para. [0046]).
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 kind of laser as taught by Chen with motivation to form a desired pattern on the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230008922 discloses an ESC (225, Fig. 1-3) having a plurality of mesas (227) and a seal band (Fig. 2B) with varied heights (para. [0046-0053]).
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 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