DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 1/16/2026.
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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 are pending, with claims 1, 5, and 8 independent.
Claims 3, 7, and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US Pub. 2021/0305025) in view of Okita (US Pub. 2015/0122776) and Koshimizu (US Pub. 2022/0375731).
Regarding claims 1, Tamura teaches a wafer placement table (Fig. 9, elements as follows) comprising:
a ceramic plate ([0036] and Fig. 1, chuck #20 formed of aluminum nitride/oxide, known ceramics) including a plate annular portion (Fig. 9, portion beneath edge ring ER) that includes a focus ring placement surface (see Fig. 9) which has an annular shape (see Fig. 2) and which is disposed outside a plate central portion (see Fig. 2) including a wafer placement surface (Fig. 9, portion beneath substrate W) having a circular shape (see Fig. 2); and
a conductive substrate ([0034] and Fig. 9, lower electrode #18) that is provided on a lower surface of the ceramic plate and that is used as a radio-frequency source electrode ([0034]), wherein
at a same height from the focus ring placement surface in the plate annular portion (see Fig. 9, #22a and #22b/#222 at same height), a focus ring attraction electrode ([0036] and Fig. 9, electrode #22a) is embedded in an alternating arrangement (#22b then #22a in a radial direction) with at least one focus-ring-side radio-frequency bias electrode ([0060] and Fig. 9, second electrode #22b/#222) to which a bias radio frequency is supplied ([0060] and Fig. 9, from bias power source #81).
Tamura does not teach at least two focus ring attraction electrodes, wherein the at least two focus ring attraction electrodes are alternately disposed in a plan view in the focus ring placement surface.
However, Okita teaches this limitation (Okita – [0045] and Figs. 3-4, first and second attraction electrodes #25a/#25b disposed in an alternating sawtooth shape).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Tamura apparatus to comprise a second focus ring attraction electrode and adopt the alternating structure of Okita in order to provide a stronger electrostatic attraction force (Okita – [0012]).
Modified Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one focus-ring-side radio frequency bias electrode is disposed in a plan view between the at least two focus ring attraction electrodes.
However, Koshimizu teaches this limitation (Koshimizu – par. [0100] and Fig. 13: bias electrode #16f may be provided between chucking electrodes #16b and #16c).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the ring arrangement scheme of Koshimizu within the modified Tamura apparatus as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Particularly, the Examiner submits that Tamura modified by Okita teaches two attraction electrodes and a bias electrode, but is silent any suggestion as to how the combined structure would be arranged.
Koshimizu teaches the claimed arrangement in the context of an analogous apparatus, thus a PHOSITA would have every expectation that the result of the Examiner’s proposed combination would yield predictable results.
To complete the inquiry, the Examiner notes a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly trained, highly educated, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of experience spanning multiple disciplines. Given the structural features and arrangements specifically disclosed in the prior art references, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would be more than capable of arriving at the claimed invention without the aid of the instant disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, Tamura teaches wherein in plan view, the focus ring attraction electrode and the at least one focus-ring-side radio-frequency bias electrode are separately disposed on an inner circumferential side and an outer circumferential side of the focus ring placement surface ([0073] and Fig. 9: electrodes #22a and #22b/#222 in inner/outer relation).
Tamura does not teach at least two focus ring attraction electrodes
However, Okita teaches this limitation (Okita – [0045] and Figs. 3-4, first and second attraction electrodes #25a/#25b disposed in an alternating sawtooth shape).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Tamura apparatus to comprise a second focus ring attraction electrode and adopt the alternating structure of Okita in order to provide a stronger electrostatic attraction force (Okita – [0012]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US Pub. 2021/0305025), Okita (US Pub. 2015/0122776), and Koshimizu (US Pub. 2022/0375731), as applied to claims 1-2 above, further in view of Dible (US Patent 6,042,686).
The limitations of claims 1-2 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Tamura teaches wherein a wafer attraction electrode ([0049] and Fig. 9, electrode #21a is right portion) and a wafer-side radio-frequency bias electrode ([0051] and Fig. 9, electrode #211 is left portion) to which the bias radio frequency is supplied ([0052] and Fig. 9, from bias source #61) is a single member and is embedded in the plate central portion (see Fig. 9) so as to be arranged in order of proximity to the wafer placement surface (see Fig. 9, adjacent substrate W)
Modified Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the wafer attraction electrode and the wafer-side radio-frequency bias electrode are different members.
However, Dible teaches a segmented attraction/bias electrode structure (Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the single member electrode of Tamura to comprise two different members a la Dible in order to control uniformity of wafer treatment while clamping (Dible – C1, L57-63).
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himori (US Pub. 2011/0031217, hereinafter- Himori ‘217) in view of Tamura (US Pub. 2021/0305025), Himori (US Pub. 2008/0062609, hereinafter- Himori ‘609), and Dible (US Patent 6,042,686).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Himori ‘217 teaches a wafer placement table ([0018] and Figs. 1 and 3, mounting table #2 and related parts as follows) comprising:
a plate (Fig. 3, insulator surrounding #7c) including a plate annular portion (see Fig. 3) that includes a focus ring placement surface which has an annular shape ([0041] and Fig. 3, for focus ring #5) and which is disposed outside a plate central portion (see Fig. 3, radially outward of #6b) including a wafer placement surface having a circular shape ([0018] and Figs. 1, 3: supporting wafer W on upper circular surface); and
a conductive substrate that is provided on a lower surface of the ceramic plate and that is used as a radio-frequency source electrode ([0018] and Figs. 1, 3: mounting table comprises aluminum; connected to RF supplies #10a/b), wherein
at a same height from the focus ring placement surface in the plate central portion, a wafer attraction electrode ([0020] and Fig. 3, ESC electrode #6a) that is embedded with at least one wafer-side radio-frequency bias electrode ([0021] and Fig. 3, bias electrode #7b) to which the bias radio frequency is supplied (see Fig. 3, via bias power supply #8b); and
the wafer attraction electrode and the at least one wafer-side radio-frequency bias electrode are alternately disposed in plan view in the wafer placement surface ([0021] and Fig. 3, concentrically arranged).
Himori ‘217 does not explicitly teach wherein the plate is a ceramic.
However, Tamura teaches a ceramic plate ([0036] and Fig. 1, chuck #20 formed of aluminum nitride/oxide, known ceramics)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to select a ceramic for the plate material of Himori ‘217 as a matter of obvious material choice as taught by Tamura. It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Modified Himori ‘217 does not teach at least two wafer attraction electrodes embedded in an alternating arrangement.
However, Himori ‘609 teaches at least two wafer attraction electrodes embedded in an alternating arrangement ([0110] and Fig. 7, inner and outer chucking electrodes #82 and #83).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Himori ‘217 apparatus to comprise at least two wafer attraction electrodes similar to Himori ‘609 in order to prevent current from flowing from the edge to center of the support (skin effect), suppress disturbance of plasma distribution, and enhance process uniformity (Himori ‘609 – [0018]).
Modified Himori ‘217 does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one wafer-side radio frequency bias electrode is disposed in a plan view between the at least two wafer attraction electrodes.
However, Dible teaches a segmented attraction/bias electrode structure with this arrangement (Fig. 2, electrodes can be for chucking, power, or bias: C2, L29-63).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the arrangement of electrodes in the modified Himori ‘217 apparatus similar to Dible in order to control uniformity of wafer treatment while clamping (Dible – C1, L57-63).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Himori ‘217 does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Tamura teaches wherein a ratio of an area of a wafer-side radio-frequency bias electrode to an area of a wafer attraction electrode is greater than or equal to 0.8 and smaller than or equal to 1.2 ([0049], [0051], and Fig. 9, electrode #21a is right portion and electrode #211 is left portion, both have the same area thus the ratio = 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the areas of the bias electrode and attraction electrode of Himori ‘217 to the claimed ratio range as a matter of overlapping ranges. The courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Argument
Claims 1 and 5 are have been amended to correct minor informalities, thus the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Koshimizu as applied to claim 1 and Dible as applied to claims 5 and 8 remedy any alleged deficiencies in the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718