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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 2 (claims 1-12, 20, 21-27) in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
No Claims are withdrawn (because claims 13-19 cancelled) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (cancelled claims 13-19), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/16/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “416” has been used to designate both respective distance (para. [0054], Fig. 4A) and Fig. 4b (looks like edge of ESC). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Supportive structures (mesas, para. [0047]) in at least claims 1-12, 20.
Heating elements (heater electrodes, para. [0061]) in at least claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein an arrangement of the retaining ring and the plurality of supportive structures for each cooling region of the three or more regions is defined by parameters generated by a machine-learning model" in the claim. It is unclear what “parameters generated” are and what the machine-learning model entails to arrive at “the arrangement of the retaining ring and the plurality of supportive structures.” Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190111541 to Boyd, Jr., in view of US 6320736 to Shamouilian.
Claim 1: Boyd, Jr, discloses an electrostatic chuck (ESC) comprising: a ceramic body (203 [substrate support], Fig. 2A/2B) comprising one or more embedded electrodes (227 [chucking electrodes]), the ceramic body (203) comprising a first surface (201 [patterned surface]) having a first diameter (Fig. 1, 2); three or more regions (Fig. 2A, 215, 213, 219) defined on the first surface (201), wherein the three or more regions (Fig. 2A) are arranged concentrically on the first surface (201, see Fig. 2A), at least one region comprising:
a retaining ring (213 [first outer sealing bands], Fig. 2B) arranged on the first surface (201) and defining an outer edge of the region (outer edge of 203); and a plurality of supportive structures (217 [protrusions]) arranged on the first surface (201) and within the region (within 213), wherein the plurality of supportive structures (217) is configured to support a surface of a substrate (115 [substrate]) when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck (203); and
a plurality of conduits (223 [gas ports]) formed in the ceramic body (203) and configured to independently introduce a gas into each of the three or more regions (Fig. 2A) through the ceramic body (203) and to the first surface (201), wherein each region of the three or more regions (Fig. 2A) is configured to retain a corresponding positive gas pressure within the region and the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck (203, para. [0027]), and wherein the one or more embedded electrodes (227) are configured to generate a retaining force on the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck (203, para. [0027]).
However Boyd, Jr. does not disclose wherein each of the three or more regions having a plurality of supportive structures.
Shamouilian teaches forming the desired pattern of sealing bands (44 [non-sealing protrusions], 46 [sealing protrusions], Fig. 6-7, c. 9, l. 17-25) which form multiple regions (56a-56d [zones]) which are at least three regions, each having a plurality of supportive structures (99), for the purpose of controlling the rate of gas diffusion or flow between the mesas and across the receiving surface (c. 7, l. 60-67, c. 8, 1-7).
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 limitations above as taught by Shamouilian with motivation to control the rate of gas diffusion or flow between the mesas and across the receiving surface.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more heating elements arranged within the ceramic body and configured to heat at least a portion of the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck.
Yet Boyd, Jr. teaches some substrate supports teaching heating elements embedded in the ceramic body (“dielectric material”) for the purpose of heating the substrate support and thereby the substrate to a desired temperature before processing and/or to maintain the substrate at a desired temperature (para. [0004]).
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 heating elements as taught by Boyd, Jr. with motivation to heat the substrate support and thereby the substrate to a desired temperature before processing and/or to maintain the substrate at a desired temperature.
Claims 3-11: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. does not explicitly disclose (claim 3) wherein each region of the three or more regions comprises a uniform density of the plurality of supportive structures; (claim 4) wherein each region of the three or more regions comprises a different density of the plurality of supportive structures arranged within the region; (claim 5) wherein at least one region of the three or more regions comprises a non-uniform density of the plurality of supportive structures; (claim 6) wherein the non-uniform density of the plurality of supportive structures comprises a density gradient having a higher density adjacent to the retaining ring defining an outer edge of the region and a lower density at a center point of the region;
(claim 7) wherein at least one region of the three or more regions comprises mesas having a central tendency of height different than a central tendency of height for one or more other regions of the three or more regions; (claim 8) further comprising a second surface and a third surface having respective second and third diameters, wherein each region of the three or more regions is defined on a respective surface; (claim 9) wherein a density of the plurality of supportive structures within at least one region of the three or more regions is a threshold density for contact-dominated cooling; (claim 10) wherein a density of the plurality of supportive structures within at least one region of the three or more regions is a threshold density for gas-dominated cooling (claim 11) when the substrate is retained by the ESC, the plurality of conduits is configured to independently introduce a different gas pressure into each of the three or more regions
However Shamouilian teaches the forming the desired pattern of sealing bands (44 [non-sealing protrusions], 46 [sealing protrusions], Fig. 6-7, c. 9, l. 17-25) which form multiple regions (56a-56d [zones]), and the regions can have uniform or non-uniform pattern(s) of mesas (99 [mesas], Fig. 7, c. 8, l. 19-40, 1-7), the regions (56a-56d) can each have different diameter surfaces (see Fig. 7, 56a-56d have different diameters), where the mesas (99) can have heights and densities that vary across the surface (27, c. 8, l. 19-40), where the density of the mesas (99) can control for contact and/or gas dominated heat transfer (c. 8, l. 19-60), wherein the pressures can be different of the heat transfer gas to the different zones which reads on introducing different gas pressures independently (c. 8, l. 65-67, c. 9, l. 1-15). Shamouilian teaches all of the above limitations and options with optimization for the purpose of providing better control of the temperatures across the processing surface of the substrate (c. 9, l. 10-16).
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 above limitations and options with optimization with motivation to provide better control of the temperatures across the processing surface of the substrate.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. does not explicitly disclose wherein an arrangement of the retaining ring and the plurality of supportive structures for each cooling region of the three or more regions is defined by parameters generated by a machine-learning model.
Yet Boyd, Jr. already teaches at least one retaining ring and the plurality of support structures can be optimized by shape, height, cross-sectional profile, density, and region, among other parameters.
Additionally, regarding the limitation “defined by parameters generated by a machine-learning model,” the courts have held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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." MPEP 2113 I.
Also, Shamouilian teaches the retaining rings and the protrusions can be shaped and located according to an experimentally determined temperature distribution obtained across a substrate in an actual process environment or in a computer modeled simulation of the process environment, for the purpose of being designed for a particular set of process conditions in the chamber (c. 8, l. 40-65).
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 above teachings of Boyd, Jr, and Shamouilian with motivation to be designed for a particular set of process conditions in the chamber.
Claims 13-19: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190111541 Boyd, Jr., in view of US 6320736 to Shamouilian.
Claim 20: Boyd, Jr. discloses a system comprising: a plasma processing chamber (100 [processing chamber], Fig. 1) enclosing a processing region (inside 100, para. [0024]); a gas source (112/114) configured to introduce one or more etch gases into the processing region (para. [0023-0024]); a plasma source (142 [first power supply]) configured to generate a plasma within the processing region using the one or more etch gases introduced into the processing region (para. [0024]); and
an electrostatic chuck (203 [substrate support], Fig. 1-2) within the plasma processing chamber (100) and configured to retain a substrate in the processing region of the plasma processing chamber during plasma processing (para. [0024]), the electrostatic chuck (203) comprising:
a ceramic body (203) comprising one or more embedded electrodes (227 [chucking electrode]) configured to generate a retaining force on a surface of the substrate (115 [substrate]) when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck (203, para. [0027]); multiple regions (see Fig. 2A) defined on a first surface (201 [patterned surface]) of the ceramic body (203), wherein the three or more regions (Fig. 2A) are arranging concentrically on the first surface (201, Fig. 2A), each region comprising a retaining ring (213, 215, 219 [sealing bands]) arranged on the first surface (201) and defining an outer edge of the region (Fig. 2A); and
a plurality of conduits (223 [gas ports]) formed in the ceramic body (203) and considered capable to be configured to introduce a gas into each of the three or more regions through the ceramic body and to the first surface (para. [0027]).
However Boyd, Jr. does not disclose independently introducing the gas.
Shamouilian discloses independently introducing the gas to each region for the purpose of having the pressure of the heat transfer gas individually controlled at a particular location (c. 6, l. 20-50).
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 Shamouilian with motivation to have the pressure of the heat transfer gas individually controlled at a particular location.
Claim 21: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. in view of Shamouilian does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more heating elements arranged within the ceramic body and configured to heat at least a portion of the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck.
Yet Boyd, Jr. teaches some substrate supports teaching heating elements embedded in the ceramic body (“dielectric material”) for the purpose of heating the substrate support and thereby the substrate to a desired temperature before processing and/or to maintain the substrate at a desired temperature (para. [0004]).
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 heating elements as taught by Boyd, Jr. with motivation to heat the substrate support and thereby the substrate to a desired temperature before processing and/or to maintain the substrate at a desired temperature.
Claim 22: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. in view of Shamouilian discloses wherein each region of the three or more regions (Fig. 2A, Boyd, Jr.) is configured to retain a corresponding positive gas pressure within the region and the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck (203, para. [0027]), and wherein the one or more embedded electrodes (227) are configured to generate a retaining force on the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck (203, para. [0027]).
Claim 23: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. in view of Shamouilian does not disclose wherein each region of the three or more regions further comprises a plurality of supportive structures arranged on the first surface and within the region, and wherein the plurality of supportive structures is configured to support the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck.
Shamouilian teaches forming the desired pattern of sealing bands (44 [non-sealing protrusions], 46 [sealing protrusions], Fig. 6-7, c. 9, l. 17-25) which form multiple regions (56a-56d [zones]) which are at least three regions, each having a plurality of supportive structures (99), configured to support the surface of the substrate (4 [substrate]) when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck (28 [chuck]), for the purpose of controlling the rate of gas diffusion or flow between the mesas and across the receiving surface (c. 7, l. 60-67, c. 8, 1-7).
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 limitations above as taught by Shamouilian with motivation to control the rate of gas diffusion or flow between the mesas and across the receiving surface.
Claim 24: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. in view of Shamouilian does not disclose wherein, when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck, the plurality of conduits is configured to independently introduce a different gas pressure into each of the three or more regions.
Shamouilian discloses wherein the pressures can be different of the heat transfer gas to the different zones which reads on introducing different gas pressures independently (c. 8, l. 65-67, c. 9, l. 1-15), for the purpose of providing better control of the temperatures across the processing surface of the substrate (c. 9, l. 10-16).
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 above limitations and options with optimization with motivation to provide better control of the temperatures across the processing surface of the substrate.
Claims 25, 26: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. in view of Shamouilian does not disclose (claim 25) wherein the ceramic body and each retaining ring are a monolithic structure; (claim 26) wherein each retaining ring is arranged concentrically with respect to a center point of the top surface of the electrostatic chuck.
Shamouilian teaches (claim 25) that the ceramic body (28, Fig. 7) can be formed by machining, molding, or etching to make the sealing and non-sealing protrusions (retaining rings) which reads on each retaining ring are a monolithic structure, (claim 26) wherein each retaining ring (56a-56d) is arranged concentrically with respect to a center point of the top surface of the electrostatic chuck (Fig. 7); for the purpose of forming the desired pattern of non-sealing and sealing protrusions (c. 9, l. 15-25).
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 limitations above as taught by Shamouilian with motivation to form the desired pattern of non-sealing and sealing protrusions.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd, Jr. in view of Shamouilian as applied to claims 20-26 above, and further in view of US 20160035610 to Park.
Claim 27: The apparatus of Boyd, Jr. in view of Shamouilian does not disclose wherein a height of each retaining ring is substantially equal such that when a substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck, an airtight seal is formed in each region.
Park discloses wherein a height of each retaining ring (150sa, 150sb, Fig. 11D) is substantially equal (para. [0151]) such that when a substrate (90 [substrate]) is retained by the electrostatic chuck (101 [electrostatic chuck]), for the purpose of raising a heat transfer rate in a desired area higher than another area (para. [0147]). It is noted that the top surfaces of the protrusions may be disposed at the same level and heights of the protrusions (150p) and rings (150sa, 150sb) may be substantially equal to each other (para. [0145], [0151]) which reads on obviously resulting in an airtight seal in each region.
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 limitations above as taught by Park with motivation to raise a heat transfer rate in a desired area higher than another area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240420984 discloses one or more cooling regions each have an outer edge defined by a respective retaining ring (206a, 206b, Fig. 2A, 2B) formed on the top surface (201) of the ESC (200) by the same assignee.
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