DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (5/24/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-10) were examined in a Non-Final on 9/24/2025. This office action is in response to applicant’s submission of 2/24/2026. Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending and being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Regarding Howard, applicant states the following.
Howard does not disclose measuring the wear of the edge bonding layer 401 which is either electrically non-conductive or has low electrical conductivity. That is, the circuit only changes after the edge bonding layer 401 is eroded and the plasma completes the circuit with the conductive electrical monitoring layer 403. Thus, Howard does not teach or suggest "wherein the sensor detects electrical resistance of the edge ring by electrically coupling with the plasma" as recited in claim 1. (P6)
It is noted however that Howard uses electrical resistance in several embodiments, the embodiment of Fig 4 being only one of them as discussed in the present rejection more clearly.
In Fig 4 also Howard states “electrical resistance of the electrical monitoring layer 403 typically increases quickly because of the decrease of dimension in the electrical monitoring layer 403.” Moreover, there is no restriction of where 403 is placed. For example, 401 could be almost of 0 thickness or 403 could be partially exposed to plasma.to allow thickness measurement from the start of plasma. Also, even if 401 has low conductivity, its resistance will still increase further when worn. Still further, even if 401 is non-conducting the resistance seen by the ohmmeter changes from almost infinity to a much lower value when 401 erodes due to plasma.
In paragraph 14, 22, 38 also, the teaching pertains to detecting erosion by measuring difference of resistance.
It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding Yamazaki, Applicant states as below.
“The electrical data is disclosed as being associated with the lower electrode 104 and is not disclosed anywhere as being associated with the focus ring 110.” (P8))
This however is incorrect as stated in para 109 as below.
As the apparatus state data, in addition to the thickness of the upper electrode described in the present embodiment, the thickness of by-products and the consumption of parts such as the focus ring 110a may be used. By using the consumption amount of the component as the device state data, it is possible to predict the cleaning time of the plasma processing apparatus 100 and the replacement time of the component such as the upper electrode.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic et al (US 20050171730) in view of Howard et al (US 20090290145).
Mitrovic et al disclose a plasma processing chamber comprising (Fig 1, 18):
a substrate support disposed in the internal volume (Para 20);
a ring of silicon (Para 23) disposed on the substrate support (a chamber component 26 which could be a focus ring-Para 20), the ring comprising:
a body having a top surface (30). bottom surface (28) and inside diameter wall (on the left of the ring); and one or more sensors (monitoring system 4) disposed in the substrate support below the ring and positioned to interface with the ring, the one or more sensors configured to detect wear of the ring (detect consumption -see abstract and rest of the document).
Mitrovic et al disclose optical sensor to detect wear of a ring like focus or edge ring but do not disclose detecting wear by detecting electrical resistance of the edge ring.
Howard et al disclose a substrate support (400) having edge bonding layer 401 and 403 around it, and disclose thickness measurement for determining wear of a part due to exposure to plasma, according to several embodiments using increase of resistance when a part is reduced in thickness.
For example, a monitoring layer is monitored for electrical resistance (abstract). In paragraph (14) teaches measuring difference of resistance to evaluate level of erosion. Similar teaching is disclosed in para 22. Fig 4 discloses an embedded monitoring layer 403 as discussed in para 32-32. In paragraph 35 an alternative monitoring layer is disclosed. Para 38 includes a teaching where monitoring could be used as a binary (as possible through 403 in Fig 4) as well as analog where resistance is compared to given level (threshold).
In para 36 there is a teaching that the idea of increase in resistance could be used in any other number of ways.
The resistance could be measured in several ways including by an ohmmeter, Kelvin sensing device or a four-point probe. It is noted that bonding layer resistance could also be measured across the plasma to provide a mechanism for simple ohmmeter measurement since plasma provides an electrically conductive path.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to have measured electrical resistance for detecting wear as an alternative to an optical method.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic et al (US 20050171730) in view of (Richardson (US 20170053819) Or Prinzhorn et al (US 20150233870)).
Regarding claim 3 Mitrovic does not disclose acoustic sensor to detect change of thickness.
Richardson teaches detecting wear by several means like optical, radio or acoustic means. (Para 34).
Similarly, Prinzhorn et al in Fig 4 teach detecting thickness by acoustic means. (Para 63-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this invention to have used acoustic method for detecting wear as an alternative to optical or electrical method.
Claims 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic et al (US 20050171730) in view of in view of Howard et al (US 20090290145) and Arun et al (US 8740206).
Recitation of an outer ring in claim 5 is not clearly defined in the text of the specification but is interpreted as cover ring 104. Cover ring may be used to protect or modify the function of the focus ring.
Mitrovic et al do not disclose such an outer ring.
Arun et al disclose similar apparatus in Fig 4 and disclose an outer ring 204 to act as cover ring for protection (Fig 4 and Col 5 lines 48-65).
Mitrovic already discloses silicon as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used an outer ring to protect inner ring from wear due to exposure to plasma.
Regarding claim 6 as discussed above Howard discloses measuring erosion by electrical means coupled through plasma.
Regarding claim 9 detection using optical light as an alternative to electrical signal is disclosed in Mitrovic et al as discussed earlier and optical means as an alternative. Also, Howard (Para 12-13).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic et al (US 20050171730) in view of in view of Howard et al (US 20090290145) and Arun et al (US 8740206) and (Richardson (US 20170053819) Or Prinzhorn et al (US 20150233870)).
Regarding claim 7 and 10 as in claim 3 Mitrovic does not disclose acoustic sensor to detect change of thickness.
Richardson teaches detecting wear by several means like optical, radio or acoustic means. (Para 34).
Similarly, Prinzhorn et al in Fig 4 teach detecting thickness by acoustic means. (Para 63-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this invention to have used acoustic method for detecting wear as an alternative to optical or electrical method.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic et al (US 20050171730) in view of in view of in view of Howard et al (US 20090290145) and (Negishi et al (US 20100025369) or Tanaka et al (US 20090026170)).
Regarding claim 8 Mitrovic discloses in Fig 2 different levels of wear. For example, a warning level may allow some action to be taken but no replacement is required just then (Para 32).
Negishi et al disclose that wear of the focus ring may cause plasma sheath deformation (Para 7). At this point an application of voltage bias as disclosed in Fig 3A and 3B may restore the sheath to allow process to continue without degradation (Para 8).
Another remedy to restore the sheath is by raising the focus ring as taught in several prior arts as taught by Tanaka et al (Para 6 and 7). Tanaka teaches determination of wear through optical detection from below the focus ring (Fig 6) and restoration of sheath by the application of voltage.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of this application to have adjusted parameters at a predetermined wear of the focus ring to restore process at acceptable level.
Claims 1 and 4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic et al (US 20050171730) in view of Yoshihiro Yamazaki (JP 2004335841).
Regarding claims 1 and 4 Mitrovic et al disclose optical sensor to detect wear of a ring like focus or edge ring but do not disclose detecting wear by detecting electrical resistance.
Yoshihiro Yamazaki discloses determination of consumption and thickness of components inside a plasma chamber (Abstract and Para 2, 42 and 44), specifically focus ring (Para 109). Yoshihiro Yamazaki teaches that when high frequency power is applied to chamber component, measurement of impedance and other electrical parameters allow determination of thickness resulting from consumption of part by plasma (Para 28).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to have measured electrical resistance for detecting wear as an alternative to optical method since electrical impedance is representative of resistance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levy et al (US 7751046 - Col 108 lines 32-48) and Wack et al (US 7349090- Col 103 lines 12-28) disclose measuring thick ness of a layer by determining electrical resistance.
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 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
Prosecution Insights