DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (4/19/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) are pending. In response to an election requirement the Applicant elected claims 1-2 and 7-20 with traverse.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-2 and 7-20 in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species 1-5 are useable together with either or both of species 6 and 7. Further described are potential combination of different species. This is not found persuasive because the requirement is based upon species as disclosed and not on the basis of possible combinations. Moreover, if an independent claim is found allowable, claims properly dependent on such claim would be considered for rejoinder.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “the discharge suppressor including a gas supply flow path that is part of the gas supply line and connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the discharge suppressor, and the gas supply flow path having a space portion with a length of 5 mm or less in a direction of an electric field formed by the high-frequency power.” in claim 1 and similar limitations in claims 16-18 are unclear. It is noted that it is possible to find a space portion with a length of 5 mm or less with or without a discharge suppressor.
The specification however appears to define space portion being less than 5mm in reference to Fig 4 dedicated to a spiral flow path and space between mesh structures in reference to Fig 7. Therefore, elected claims are interpreted according to the specification.
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 1-2, 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H J Kim (KR 10-0837625) in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20200227291).
Kim A plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
a process chamber (110) configured to accommodate a substrate processing;
an electrostatic chuck (132) in the process chamber and configured to support the substrate, the electrostatic chuck having a microcavity (132a) configured to store a heat transfer gas;
a lower electrode (134) in contact with a lower surface of the electrostatic chuck;
a high-frequency power supply (190) configured to applying high-frequency power to the lower electrode;
a conductive supporter spaced (138) apart from a lower portion of the lower electrode and grounded thereto;
a gas supply line (140) configured to supply the heat transfer gas being helium (See Technical -Solution); and
a discharge suppressor (150 and Fig 2) between the lower electrode and the conductive supporter, the discharge suppressor including a gas supply flow path (152a) that is part of the gas supply line and connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the discharge suppressor.
Regarding the limitation “a three-dimensionally printed discharge suppressor” it is noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding the limitation “the gas supply flow path having a space portion with a length of 5 mm or less in a direction of an electric field formed by the high-frequency power” Kim discloses the gas flow path configured for low acceleration of electrons (See the description) and indirectly proposes gas paths with small dimensions and low energy in order to prevent formation of discharge in gas lines.
Kim however do not explicitly disclose gas path space portion with a length of 5mm or less.
Ishikawa et al disclose a similar ESC chuck with discharge suppressor (Fig 1 and 2, 30) which includes spiral gas flow paths with a dimension of 0.5mm (Para 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have use narrow gas flow path of dimension less than 5 mm for prevention of abnormal discharge before the filing date of this application.
Regarding claim 2 and 19 seamless inner wall is disclosed in Kim (Fig 1) and Ishikawa (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 11 and 20 heat transfer gas is disclosed to be helium (See above).
Regarding claim 12 overlapping cavity is disclosed in Kim (Fig 1) and Ishikawa (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 13 insulating material is disclosed both Kim (ceramic or Teflon) and Ishikawa (ceramic).
Claims 15-18 are rejected with as claim 1 as discussed above.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H J Kim (KR 10-0837625) in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20200227291) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Shiraishi et al (JP 2020 150257).
Regarding claims 7-10, H J Kim in view of Ishikawa et al, gas supply flow path extends in the direction of the electric field but do not disclose flow path being partitioned by a plurality of mesh structures.
Shiraishi et al disclose an electrostatic chuck with cavity to store heat transfer gas (Fig 1, 14) and disclose plurality of porous structures (71 and 91) in the gas line (Fig 13) partitioned by plates 11 and 50a (Fig 1). The plates are joined by adhesive (60) to create a space which would be less than 5 mm (almost close to 0) considering the dimensions of holes 15b (0.05mm) and 15a (1mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used plurality of mesh structures for prevention of abnormal discharge before the filing date of this application since such structure would allow better gas conductivity with narrow path for prevention of abnormal discharge.
Regarding claim 8-10 the porous structures 71 and 91 are parallel and appear to be same size and have same central axis.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H J Kim (KR 10-0837625) in view of Ishikawa et al (US 20200227291) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Yanai et al (US 20150371832).
Regarding claim 14, discharge suppressor includes insulator in both Kim (ceramic or Teflon) and Ishikawa (ceramic), but the insulator including polyether ether ketone is not explicitly disclosed.
Yanai et al disclose a plasma chamber where a gas guide of an insulating material is disclosed to be Teflon or polyether ether ketone (Para 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulator material, polyether ether ketone for a component for prevention of abnormal discharge before the filing date of this application as being usable for gas flow path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (KR 20210155121) discloses an electrostatic chuck with heat transfer gas path including porous insert (Fig 3, 281).
Naoki Furukawa (US 20210391204) discloses an electrostatic chuck with heat transfer gas path including porous insert (Fig 2, 5 and Para 27).
Horiuchi et al (US 20170358476) discloses an electrostatic chuck with heat transfer gas path including porous insert (Fig 5A-C, 20).
Kim Hyung Joon (KR 10-2020-0030049) disclose discharge preventing insert (140, 142) in gas line (See abstract and Fig 2)
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