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
No claim(s) is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 14 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments (claims 1 and 14) 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 Gomm (claim 1) in addition to previously relied on references below.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 112 (b) rejections of claims 4 and 5, despite Applicant’s traversal of the 112 (b) rejection, Applicant in fact clarified via amendment of both claims 4 and 5 as the terms were not clearly stated in the claim, thus it was not clear which embodiment was being relied upon.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that Unno does not disclose the ceramic tubes being discrete components but are rather voids in shaped into the shaft body.
Examiner notes that the claim does not require the ceramic tubes to be “discrete components” from the shaft. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ceramic tubes being discrete components”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)/(2) as being anticipated by US 20160336213 to Gomm.
Claim 1: Gomm discloses a semiconductor processing apparatus comprising: a wafer pedestal (320 [substrate pedestal module], Fig. 6]) comprising a ceramic pedestal shaft (210 [stem]) coupled to an underside of a ceramic wafer chuck (under 205 [platen]), the ceramic pedestal shaft (210) having a central through opening (215 [cylindrical interior region]); and ceramic gas delivery tubes (217 [gas passages]) embedded within the ceramic pedestal shaft (210), at least one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217) being embedded within or attached to a wall (211 [side wall]) of the ceramic pedestal shaft (210, para. [0031]), the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217) being made of a first ceramic material (para. [0030]) and the ceramic pedestal shaft (210) being made of a second ceramic material (para. [0030]), the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217) being coupled to gas channels (280 [platen gas passage]) in the ceramic wafer chuck (205, para. [0031]).
Claim 10: Gomm discloses wherein the ceramic pedestal shaft (210, Fig. 6, Gomm) is made of a ceramic material selected from a group consisting of aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and boron nitride (para. [0030]).
Claim 11: Gomm discloses wherein the first ceramic material (material of 217, Fig. 6, Gomm) is selected from a group consisting of aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and boron nitride (para. [0030]).
Claim 12: Gomm discloses wherein the first ceramic material (material of 217, Fig. 6, Gomm) and the second ceramic material (material of 210) are made of aluminum nitride (para. [0030]).
Claim 13: Gomm discloses wherein the ceramic pedestal shaft (210, Fig. 6, Gomm) is diffusion bonded to the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (205, para. [0027]).
Claim(s) 14, 18-19, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200075361 to Unno.
Claim 14: Unno discloses a method of forming a wafer pedestal assembly, the method comprising: forming a pedestal shaft structure (30 [tubular shaft], Fig. 2) comprising an central through opening (s1 [inner space]) and a ceramic gas delivery tube (36 [through-holes]), the ceramic gas delivery tube being made of a ceramic glass (para. [0028], [0030]); sintering the pedestal shaft structure (30, para. [0036]) to form a ceramic pedestal shaft (30) with the ceramic gas delivery tube (36, para. [0036]);
aligning the ceramic gas delivery tube (36) with a gas channel opening (26 [gas flow holes]) of a ceramic wafer chuck (20 [plate], para. [0033-0034]); and attaching the ceramic pedestal shaft (30) to the ceramic wafer chuck (20) with the ceramic gas delivery tube (36) being aligned to the gas channel opening (26, para. [0033]).
Claim 18: Unno discloses wherein forming the pedestal shaft structure (30, Fig. 2, Unno) comprises performing a 3-D printing process (para. [0014]).
Claim 19: Unno discloses wherein the ceramic gas delivery tube (36, Fig. 2, Unno) is placed within a wall of the pedestal shaft structure (wall of 30, Fig. 2).
Claim 21: Unno discloses wherein attaching the ceramic pedestal shaft (30, Fig. 2, Unno) comprises performing a diffusion bonding process (para. [0033]).
Claim 22: Unno discloses wherein forming the pedestal shaft structure (30, Fig. 2, Unno) comprises forming with a ceramic material (30) selected from a group consisting of aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and boron nitride (para. [0028, 0030]).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20090002913 to Naim.
Claims 2-3: Gomm does not disclose (claim 2) wherein the first ceramic material and the second ceramic material are separated from each other by an interface region; (claim 3) wherein the first ceramic material and the second ceramic material have different chemical composition.
However Naim discloses (claim 2) wherein the first ceramic material (material of 1/3 [dielectric layer]/[polyceramic adhesive layer], Fig. 2, para. [0021]) and the second ceramic material (material of 21 [dielectric insulator]) are separated from each other by an interface region (see Fig. 2); (claim 3) wherein the first ceramic material (material of 1/3) and the second ceramic material (material of 21) have different chemical composition (para. [0024], [0021-0022]); for the purpose of preventing arcing that may develop during processing (para. [0022]).
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 requirements above as taught by Naim with motivation to prevent arcing that may develop during processing.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20140117119 to Unno.
Claim 4: The apparatus of Gomm discloses and a second of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217, Fig. 6, Gomm) embedded in a wall (211) of the ceramic pedestal shaft (210) and coupled to a second gas channel opening (opening of 280) in a peripheral region of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (underside of 205);
The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes is centered within the central through opening and coupled to a first gas channel opening in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck;
Unno discloses further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (18 [inner tube], Fig. 1) is centered within the central through opening (opening of 22 [outer tube]) and coupled to a first gas channel opening (“through-holes,” not shown but disclosed in para. [0025]) in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (12 plate]) for the purpose of reducing cracking and/or reducing unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation (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 central tube as taught by Unno with motivation to reduce cracking and/or reduce unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20140117119 to Unno, US 20160230281 to Lin.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes is centered within the central through opening and coupled to a gas channel opening in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck; and a second of the ceramic gas delivery tubes disposed within the central through opening and attached to an inside wall of the ceramic pedestal shaft.
Unno discloses further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (18 [inner tube], Fig. 1) is centered within the central through opening (opening of 22 [outer tube]) and coupled to a first gas channel opening (“through-holes,” not shown but disclosed in para. [0025]) in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (12 plate]) for the purpose of reducing cracking and/or reducing unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation (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 central tube as taught by Unno with motivation to reduce cracking and/or reduce unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation.
Regarding the second tubes, however Lin teaches many configurations of a conduits (Fig. 1-8B) including embedded in a wall or located within an opening, or both configurations for the purpose of obtaining a pedestal that is temperature controlled in multiple zones (para. 0009]).
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 tube multiple options as taught by Lin with motivation to obtain a pedestal that is temperature controlled in multiple zones.
Claim(s) 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20190189472 to Dunbar, US 20050069015 to Bogdahn.
Claims 6, 9: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising (claim 6) a resistance heater embedded in one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes; (claim 9) further comprising a resistance heater embedded in one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes.
Dunbar discloses (claim 6, 9) a resistance heater (110 [heating elements], Fig. 3, para. [0013]) embedded in one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (100 [tube]), for the purpose of being particularly useful in fluid systems for semiconductor manufacturing and/or other chemical processes (para. [0023]).
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 resistance heater as taught by Dunbar with motivation to be particularly useful in fluid systems for semiconductor manufacturing and/or other chemical processes.
The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose (claim 9) with a cooling tube coiled around one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes with an embedded resistance heater.
Bogdahn discloses further comprising a cooling tube (9-10, 29, Fig. 1) coiled around the ceramic gas delivery tube (1 [quartz glass cylinder]) with heater (21 [furnace jacket]) for the purpose of achieving a controllable temperature (para. [0045], [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 cooling structure as taught by Bogdahn with motivation to achieve a controllable temperature.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20050069015 to Bogdahn, US 20010004879 to Umotoy.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising a cooling tube coiled around one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes;
Bogdahn discloses further comprising a cooling tube (9-10, 29, Fig. 1) coiled around the ceramic gas delivery tube (1 [quartz glass cylinder]) for the purpose of achieving a controllable temperature (para. [0045], [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 cooling structure as taught by Bogdahn with motivation to achieve a controllable temperature.
Claim 8: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose wherein the cooling tube comprises a metal selected from a group consisting of nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, and tungsten carbide.
Umotoy discloses wherein the cooling structure (399, Fig. 3a) comprises a metal selected from a group consisting of nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, and tungsten carbide (para. [0053]) or other suitable materials for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of good thermal conductivity and chemical compatibility (para. 0053]).
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 material optimization and/or requirements as taught by Umotoy with motivation to satisfy the requirement of good thermal conductivity and chemical compatibility.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200075361 to Unno as applied to claims 14, 18-19, 21-22 above.
Claims 16-17: The apparatus of Unno does not disclose (claim 16) wherein forming the pedestal shaft structure comprises performing a compression molding process; (claim 17) wherein forming the pedestal shaft structure comprises performing an injection molding process.
However Unno teaches that the pedestal shaft structure (30, Fig. 2, Unno) can be fabricated using a mold casting method and firing the fabricating compact which reads on the two methods above (para. [0046]), for the purpose of being comparatively easily manufactured (para. [0016]).
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 optimization of using molding processes as taught by Unno with motivation to being comparatively easily manufactured.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno as applied to claims 14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and further in view of US 20120160361 to Fischer.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Unno discloses wherein forming the pedestal shaft structure (30, Fig. 2, Unno) comprises placing the ceramic gas delivery tube (36) in a mold (para. [0046]), and removing the pedestal shaft structure from the mold after a curing process (para. [0046]).
However Unno does not disclose performing a powder coating process to coat the ceramic gas delivery tube with a ceramic powder.
Fischer discloses performing a powder coating process to coat the ceramic tube (2) with a ceramic powder (CWRC powder, para. [0064]), for the purpose of adding protective coatings onto inner surface of long length tubes having relatively small diameter to prevent corrosion, erosion, or wear damage of said surface (abstract).
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 limitation as taught by Fischer with motivation to add protective coatings onto inner surface of long length tubes having relatively small diameter to prevent corrosion, erosion, or wear damage of said surface.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno as applied to claims 14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and further in view of US 20160230281 to Lin.
Claim 20: The apparatus of Unno does not disclose wherein the ceramic gas delivery tube is placed in the central through opening and attached to an inside wall of the pedestal shaft structure.
However Lin teaches many configurations of a conduits (Fig. 1-8B) including embedded in a wall or located within an opening, or both configurations for the purpose of obtaining a pedestal that is temperature controlled in multiple zones (para. 0009]).
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 tube multiple options as taught by Lin with motivation to obtain a pedestal that is temperature controlled in multiple zones.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno as applied to claims 14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and further in view of US 20200373187 to Singu.
Claim 23: The apparatus of Unno does not disclose wherein an inside diameter of the ceramic gas delivery tube is between 1 mm and 10 mm.
However Singu discloses wherein an inside diameter of the ceramic gas delivery tube (260 [pedestal channels], Fig. 4B), is between 1 mm and 10 mm (para. [0044]) for the purpose of avoiding a cause of device uniformity issues due to random deposition thickness from non-controlled process gases on the backside of the substrate (para. [0021]).
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 diameter requirements as taught by Singu with motivation to avoid a cause of device uniformity issues due to random deposition thickness from non-controlled process gases on the backside of the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses a method of forming a wafer pedestal assembly, the method comprising: forming a pedestal shaft structure comprising a central through opening and a metal tube within a wall of the pedestal shaft structure; sintering the pedestal shaft structure to form a pedestal shaft with the metal tube; and attaching the pedestal shaft to a ceramic wafer chuck with the gas delivery tube being aligned to a gas channel opening of the ceramic wafer chuck.
However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest etching the metal tube to form a gas delivery tube disposed within the wall of the pedestal shaft, as set forth in the present claims. The method of Unno or Lingampalli fails to disclose the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable.
Conclusion
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