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
The amendment to claims 1-5 where the term “chamber insulating part” has been changed to “chamber insulation plate” has necessitated the withdrawal of the objections to the claims and specification. Likewise, the amendment of claims 1-5 where the term “chamber insulating part” has been changed to “chamber insulation plate” has necessitated the withdrawal of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) on pages 9-11 that Kwon et al fails to teach that the dielectric constant controller comprises particles or pores distributed in the base material body. First, the term used in the claims is “dispersed” but either term “dispersed” or “distributed” under the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken to mean the pores are provided in the base material body. Note the claims do not specify the pattern or magnitude of how dispersed or distributed in claim 1. The claim further recites that the dielectric constant controller is disposed in the base material body see Figs. 1 and 3A where there are two dielectric controllers 1) VH pores and 2) insulation sink 320 within the VH or as a part of the body 310 see the first paragraph of col. 5. See Fig. 3A of Kwon et al where the insulation body 310 (base material) includes pores (void holes VH) that have a smaller dielectric constant as these void holes are filled with air and would have a dielectric constant of 1 see col. 6 lines 53-63. Kwon et al also teaches that the insulation sink 320(made of an insulation material with air holes) that is disposed in the base material body can be made of a second insulation material with a lesser dielectric constant see col. 5 lines 1-17 of Kwon et al.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al (US 10,629,467).
Regarding claim 1. The prior art of Kwon et al teaches a chamber insulation plate 300 to be disposed under a substrate support (base plate 200) for supporting a substrate in a plasma processing chamber, the chamber insulation plate 300 is configured to electrically insulate the substrate support from the chamber, the chamber insulation plate comprising See Fig. 3A of Kwon et al where the insulation body 310 (base material) includes pores (void holes VH) that have a smaller dielectric constant as these void holes are filled with air and would have a dielectric constant of 1 see col. 6 lines 53-63. Kwon et al also teaches that the insulation sink 320 that is disposed in the base material body can be made of a second insulation material with a lesser dielectric constant see col. 5 lines 1-17 of Kwon et al. The difference in the dielectric constants would reduce loss of radio-frequency (RF) bias power applied to the substrate support to control ion energy in the plasma.
PNG
media_image1.png
746
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. The chamber insulation plate of claim 1, wherein the dielectric constant controller comprises pores. See col. 5 line 1 – col. 6 line 52 of Kwon et al.
Regarding claim 4. The chamber insulation plate of claim 1, wherein the ceramic material having the first dielectric constant comprises at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3). See col. 2 lines 54-65 of Kwon et al where aluminum nitride (AIN), yttria (Y2O3), and alumina (Al2O3) are recited.
Regarding claim 6. A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (see col. 1 lines 51-67 of Kwon et al ) having a processing space for processing a substrate with plasma The prior art of Kwon et al teaches a chamber insulation plate 300 to be disposed under a substrate support (base plate 200) for supporting a substrate in a plasma processing chamber, the chamber insulation plate 300 is configured to electrically insulate the substrate support from the chamber, the chamber insulation plate comprising: a base material body (insulation body 310) made of a ceramic material having a first dielectric constant; and a dielectric constant controller (insulation sink 320) dispersed in the base material body and having a second dielectric constant different from the first dielectric constant to reduce loss of radio-frequency (RF) bias power applied to the substrate support to control ion energy in the plasma. See Figs. 1 and 3A where there are two dielectric controllers 1) VH pores and 2) insulation sink 320 within the VH or as a part of the body 310 see the first paragraph of col. 5.
Regarding claim 7. The substrate processing apparatus of Kwon et al wherein the substrate support comprises a dielectric plate (dielectric body 110) for placing the substrate thereon, and an electrode plate (base plate 200 with electrode 120) disposed under the dielectric plate, and wherein the insulation plate 300is disposed in contact with a bottom surface of the electrode plate (see the recitation of this configuration in the last paragraph of col. 4 of Kwon et al) to reduce loss of the RF bias power applied to the electrode plate. See Fig. 1 of Kwon et al.
Regarding claim 8. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the ceramic material having the first dielectric constant comprises at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3). See col. 2 lines 54-65 of Kwon et al where aluminum nitride (AIN), yttria (Y2O3), and alumina (Al2O3) are recited.
Regarding claim 9. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the dielectric constant controller having the second dielectric constant comprises pores. See col. 5 lines 1-67 and Fig. 3A where the void holes VH (pores) are discussed/illustrated.
Regarding claim 10. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 9, wherein a porosity in a central region of the insulation plate corresponding to a central portion of the substrate is different from a porosity in an edge region of the insulation plate corresponding to an edge portion of the substrate. See col. 5 lines 1-67 and Figs. 3A and 3B where the void holes VH (pores) are discussed/illustrated.
Regarding claim 11. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 10, wherein the porosity in the central region of the insulation plate is lower than the porosity in the edge region of the insulation plate. See col. 5 lines 1-67 and Figs. 3A and 3B where the void holes VH (pores) are discussed/illustrated.
Regarding claim 12. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 10, wherein the porosity in the central region of the insulation plate 300a of Kwon et al having a hollow member 711 which may include am insulation material which is higher than the porosity/lower dielectric constant in the edge region of the insulation plate. See Fig. 5 of Kwon et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
740
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) view of Xie et al (US 2016/0111373)
The teaching of Kwon et al were discussed above esp. the rejection of claims 1,2, and 4 above. Kwon et al also illustrates a chamber in Fig. 6.
See col. 6 lines 47-52 where Kwon et al teaches that the number and size of the pores (VH voids holes) may be varied or can be adjusted.
The prior art of Kwon et al fails to specifically teach that the porosity (dispersing or distribution of the pores) of the chamber insulation plate is 2-20 %.
Xi et al teaches a multilayer dielectric stack where each layer (three layers shown in
Figs. 1C and 1D) has different dielectric contact, porosity, hardness etc. See Fig. 3 of Xie et al
where the porosity of layer 111 is 25%, layer 112B is 10% and the porosity of layer 112A is
12%. This multilayer dielectric stack as suggested by Xie et al can be used as an alternative to
the base material body and/or dielectric constant controller (where the pores are smaller and
dispersed more throughout the entire body) as opposed to the size and distribution of the pores of
Kwon et al. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Kwon et al with
the suggestion to use an optimal porosity of the ceramic layers to impede plasma formation and
protect the support from damage due to plasma as suggested by Xie et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
616
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
344
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See Figs 1B-1D and Fig. 3 of Xie et al above in Fig. 3 where layer 112A is layer 112 and layer 112B is 106 as illustrated in Fig. 1D
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) view of Xie et al (US 2016/0111373) and Moriya et al (US 2009/0223450).
The combined teachings of Kwon et al and Xie et al where discussed above.
Recall Xie et al suggests stacking layers, and it appears that Xie et al notes that lamination of layers in known in [0031]. The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Xie et al fails to teach that the chamber insulation plate is specifically a laminated structure.
The prior art of Moriya et al teaches the advantage of laminating the layers of the member (such as chamber insulation plate) of the substrate processing apparatus. According to Moriya et al lamination is suggested as a way to couple the layers so the coupling between the layers won’t be damaged during plasma process see [0012]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Xie et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Regarding claim 13. The substrate processing apparatus resulting from the combined teachings
of Kwon et al and Xie et al teaches the insulation plate has different porosities, and wherein a
porosity in an upper layer and a lower layer of the insulation plate is different from a porosity in
a middle layer interposed between the upper and lower layers. See Fig. 3 of Xie et al where the
porosity of layer 111 is 25%, layer 112B is 10% and the porosity of layer 112A is 12%. Recall in the rejection of claim 12 the prior art of Moriya et al teaches the advantage of laminating the layers of the member (such as chamber insulation plate) of the substrate processing apparatus. According to Moriya et al lamination is suggested as a way to couple the layers so the coupling between the layers won’t be damaged during plasma process see [0012]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Xie et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Regarding claim 14. The substrate processing apparatus resulting from the combined teachings
of Kwon et al and Xie et al teaches the porosity in the upper and lower layers is lower than the porosity in the middle layer. See Fig. 1C and 1D of Xie et al. The prior art of Moriya et al teaches the advantage of laminating the layers of the member (such as chamber insulation plate) of the substrate processing apparatus. According to Moriya et al lamination is suggested as a way to couple the layers so the coupling between the layers won’t be damaged during plasma process see [0012]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Xie et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Regarding claim 15. The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Xie et al that the chamber insulation plate is a laminated structure when further modified by Moriya et al but fails to specifically teach wherein the porosity in the upper and lower layers is higher than the porosity in the middle layer. In [0007] Xie et al teaches that the presence of voids or pores lowers the dielectric contact of the layers as air has a dielectric constant of 1. In [0024] and [0030] – [0033] Xie et al offers that the porosity (pore distribution and size) of the layers can be individually controlled to ensure the desired dielectric constant of each layer. The porosity of the layers is deemed a matter of optimization as the porosity is shown by Xie et al to affect the dielectric constant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Xie et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Claims 5 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) view of Larson et al (US 2010/0304571).
The teachings of Kwon et al where discussed above. Recall Kwon et al teaches adhesive layer A
in Fig. 1 and porous insulation sink layer 320 in the paragraph joining columns 4 and 5.
The apparatus resulting of Kwon et al fails to teach that the apparatus comprises particles in the ceramic materials such that the apparatus of Kwon et al fails to specifically teach:
Regarding claim 5: See the rejection of claim 4 above where the second dielectric constant is lower than the first dielectric constant see col. 5 line 1 – col. 6 line 52, but Kwon et al fails to teach the particles having the second dielectric constant comprise at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3).
Regarding claim 16. The substrate processing apparatus of The substrate processing apparatus of wherein the dielectric constant controller having the second dielectric constant comprises particles having the second dielectric constant.
Regarding claim 17. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the particles having the second dielectric constant comprise at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3).
Regarding claim 18. The substrate processing apparatus of wherein the insulation plate comprises a central region corresponding to a central portion of the substrate, and an edge region corresponding to an edge portion of the substrate, and wherein a dispersion density of the particles having the second dielectric constant in the central region is different from a dispersion density of the particles having the second dielectric constant in the edge region.
The prior art of Larson et al teaches a vacuum chamber with an adhesive in the substrate support or chamber component having a composite layer of sheet adhesive with different physical properties see abstract. In [0042] the prior art of Larson et al teaches using a sheet adhesive made of silicon matrixed around alumina (Al2O3) microbeads (particles). In [0043] of Larson et al it is recited that areas of the sheet adhesive in the joint interface exposed to ions or radicals that have migrated through passages or gaps can be unfilled (filler particle free) while other areas of the sheet adhesive not exposed to the ions or radicals can include filler particles. In [0046] and [0061] Larson et al teaches that the introduction of the particles further improves thermal conductivity. The dispersion of these particles is a matter of design choice such that the dispersion of particles would be optimized to ensure optimal desire thermal conductivity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kwon et al with the suggestion of Larson et al to introduce particles and to disperse them optimally to improve thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim 19: Recall Kwon et al teaches the plurality of holes is asymmetrically provided in the insulation plate, the pores are illustrated in Kwon et al as void holes (VH). The apparatus resulting of Kwon et al fails to teach that the apparatus comprises particles in the ceramic materials The apparatus of Kwon et al further fails to teach that the chamber insulation plate is a laminated structure. See the abstract, [0042], [0061], [0071] with the discussion of electrostatic chucking laminate 124 and [0075] of Larson et al where lamination of composite layered structures is suggested. In [0075] Larson et al teaches that the introduction of the particles as the ceramic material are in the ceramic material and that these particles further improves thermal conductivity and the lamination protects the layers that are joined from plasma damage.
Furthermore, the dispersion of these particles is a matter of design choice such that the dispersion of particles would be optimized to ensure optimal desire thermal conductivity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kwon et al with the suggestion of Larson et al to introduce particles and to disperse them optimally to improve thermal conductivity.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kwon et al with the suggestion of Larson et al to introduce particles to improve thermal conductivity and to laminate layers together so that their joints (coupled surfaces) will be protected from plasma.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Firouzdor et al (US 2018/0337026) teaches a chamber component that (insulator plate 210) includes an insulator material. Ceramic plugs 240 (with pores) may be inserted into the insulator plate 210 see [0056].
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The
examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights