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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2B reference numeral 290.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. [0020] "hollow support shaft 120" should be corrected to "hollow support shaft 112" since the rest of the Specification refers to "hollow support shaft 112."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 2 and 12, limitation “chucking electrode and active far edge electrode may be a distance of about 1.5 mm to about 3 mm below the first side” is interpreted in light of Fig. 2B and para. [0035] as “chucking electrode and active far edge electrode are a distance of about 1.5 mm to about 3 mm below the first side.”
Regarding claim 7 and 17, limitation “wherein the ground mesh may be disposed a distance of between about 1.5 mm and about 3.5 mm above the second side” is interpreted in light of Fig. 2B and para. [0045] as “wherein the ground mesh is disposed a distance of between about 1.5 mm and about 3.5 mm above the second side.”
Regarding claim
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 (and dependent claims 14-19) is/are 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.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites "the process chamber of claim 10" but claim 10 recites "The substrate support of claim 9" thus it is unclear whether claim 12 is a process chamber or a substrate support. It appears the claim 12, as currently recited, is dependent on the incorrect claim. Additionally, claim 12 recites "the chucking electrodes" but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation since none of the claims recite "chucking electrodes" (i.e. a plurality of chucking electrodes).
For the purpose of examination, claim 12 shall be interpreted as, "The processing chamber ofclaim 11 wherein the chucking electrode and the active far edge electrode may be a distance of about 1.5 mm to about 3 mm below the first side.
In light of the above, dependent claims 14-19 are also rejected at least due to rejected claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”) and Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth").
Regarding independent claim 1 and 11, Lin '198 teaches:
a substrate support (comprising electrostatic chuck 560, Fig. 5B, para. [0058]-[0065]; comprising electrostatic chuck 128, Fig. 1, para. [0023]) disposed within the chamber body (comprising 102, Fig. 1, para. [0018]), the substrate support comprising:
a ceramic electrostatic chuck (comprising 560, Fig. 5B) having a body (comprising chuck body 228, Fig. 5B, para. [0034]), the body having an outer diameter (as understood from Fig. 5B, additionally, claim 1 teaches the chuck body has a circumference which means the chuck body necessarily has an outer diameter), a first side (i.e. upper surface/top surface 202, Fig. 5B, para. [0030]) configured to support a substrate (comprising 121, Fig. 5B, para. [0030]) and a second side (i.e. bottom surface) opposite the first side (comprising 202, Fig. 5B), wherein body (comprising 228, Fig. 5B) comprises:
a chucking electrode (comprising inner electrode 542, Fig. 5B, para. [0061]);
an active far edge electrode (comprising outer electrode 544, Fig. 5B, para. [0058][0063],[0065]) disposed adjacent the chucking electrode;
a heating element (comprising heater 288, Fig. 5B, para. [0035]-[0036]) disposed below the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B); and
Regarding independent claim 11, Lin '198 further teaches a processing chamber (comprising PECVD system 100, Fig. 1, para. [0018]), comprising a chamber body (comprising 102, Fig. 1, para. [0018]).
Lin '198 as applied above does not explicitly teach a floating mesh disposed below the chucking electrode; the heating element is below the floating mesh; a ground mesh disposed below the heating element, wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side.
However, Lin '494 teaches a substrate support (comprising pedestal 128, Fig. 4A, para. [0038]) comprising a ground mesh (comprising ground mesh 320, Fig. 4A, para. [0036], [0037], [0040]-[0042]) disposed below the heating element (comprising 400C-F, Fig. 4A, para. [0039]), wherein the ground mesh (comprising 320, Fig. 4A) is adjacent the second side (comprising bottom surface 484, Fig. 4A). Lin '494 teaches that the ground mesh functions to reduce or prevent parasitic plasma from forming below the second side/bottom surface (comprising 484, Fig. 4A) of the substrate support (comprising 128, Fig. 4A)(para. [0042]).
Examiner notes that Lin '198 teaches the process chamber is configured to perform a plasma processing (para. [0002], [0018]).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a ground mesh disposed below the heating element, wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side because Lin '494 teaches that such a configuration enables reducing or preventing parasitic plasma from forming below the second side/bottom side (Lin '494: para. [0042]), which one of ordinary skill would understand to be advantageous in the process chamber of Lin '198 which is configured for plasma processing.
Lin '198 in view of Lin '494 as applied above does not explicitly teach a floating mesh disposed below the chucking electrode and the heating element is below the floating mesh.
However, Hollingsworth further teaches a substrate support (comprising monolithic anisotropic substrate support 200, Fig. 2, para. [0097]) comprising a floating mesh (comprising metal layer 210, Fig. 2, para. [0097], [0099]; metal layer 210 is considered to be at an electrically floating potential since it is not purposefully connected to power or ground) disposed below the chucking electrode (comprising clamping electrode 131, Fig. 2, para. [0077]) and the heating element (comprising heating element 110, Fig. 2, para. [0077]) is below the floating mesh (comprising 210, Fig. 2). Hollingsworth teaches that such a configuration can prevent backside discharge between the chucking electrode (comprising 131, Fig. 2) and the substrate (comprising 214, Fig. 2) wherein the floating mesh (comprising 210, Fig. 2) electrically shields a top surface/the first side of the substrate support (comprising 220, Fig. 2) from the heating element (comprising 110, Fig. 2) (para. [0097]).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a floating mesh disposed below the chucking electrode and the heating element is below the floating mesh because Hollingsworth teaches that such a configuration enables electrically shielding a top surface/first side of the substrate support from the heating element to ultimately prevent backside discharge between the chucking electrode and the substrate (para. [0097]).
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”) and Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth") as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Singhal et al. (US 2022/0122872 A1 hereinafter “Singhal”).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494 and Hollingsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, above.
Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494 and Hollingsworth does not explicitly teach wherein the chucking electrode and the active far edge electrode are a distance of about 1.5 mm to about 3 mm below the first side (i.e. top surface or support surface).
However, Singhal teaches an electrostatic chucking (see title) comprising a chucking electrode (comprising 410, Fig. 4, para. [0043]), wherein the chucking electrode (comprising 410, Fig. 4) is disposed a distance of 2 mm or 3 mm below the first side (comprising support surface 406, Fig. 4) (para. [0053]). Singhal further teaches that the distance between the chucking electrode and the first surface (i.e. support surface) can be adjust to adjust the resistance of the contact layer and thus the chucking force (para. [0052]). In other words, Singhal teaches the distance between the chucking electrode and the first side (i.e. top surface of the chuck or the support surface of the chuck) is a result-effective variable which affects the resistance and thus the chucking force.
Additionally, Lin ‘198 teaches that the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B) and the active far edge electrode (comprising 544, Fig. 5B) are the same distance from the first side (comprising 202, Fig. 5B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the chucking electrode at distance of 2 mm or 3 mm from the first side because Singhal teaches that such a distance is a suitable distance for providing a chucking electrode for holding a substrate. Additionally, it would be obvious that the combination would result in the apparatus having the active far edge electrode also be at 2 mm or 3mm from the first side since Lin ‘198 teaches that the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B) and the active far edge electrode (comprising 544, Fig. 5B) are the same distance from the first side.
Additionally, or alternatively, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the chucking electrode and the first side because Singhal teaches/suggests that the distance between the chucking electrode and the first side is a result-effective variable that can be optimized to affect the resistance and thus the chucking force of the substrate support. Furthermore, it would be that the combination would result in the apparatus having the active far edge electrode meeting claim 2 and 12 limitations since Lin ‘198 teaches that the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B) and the active far edge electrode (comprising 544, Fig. 5B) are the same distance from the first side.
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”) and Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth") as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Shamouilian et al. (US 6,478,924 B1 hereinafter “Shamouilian”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494 and Hollingsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, above.
Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494 and Hollingsworth Does not explicitly teach wherein the floating mesh is spaced about 2 mm to about 3 mm from the outer diameter.
However, Hollingsworth teaches the floating mesh (comprising metal layer 210, Fig. 2, para. [0097], [0099]) is a metal, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art understands is a kind of electrode. Hollingsworth additionally teaches that the floating mesh (comprising 210, Fig. 2) electrically shields a top surface/the first side of the substrate support (comprising 220, Fig. 2) from the heating element (comprising 110, Fig. 2) (para. [0097]). Thus, the floating mesh needs to be sized to be large enough to shield the top surface/first side of the substrate support from the heating element. Thus, the size of the floating mesh (i.e. the length the floating mesh that extends towards the outer diameter) is understood to be a result-effective variable which affects the ability of the floating mesh to shield the top surface/first side of the substrate support from the heating element. Furthermore, the larger the size of the floating mesh, the increased cost of materials.
Additionally, Shamouilian teaches that embedding an electrode in a dielectric body enables electrically insulating the electrode and prevent electrical shorting to the plasma in the chamber (col 5 line 19-23).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand when the floating mesh has 0 mm spacing from the outer diameter of the body, the floating mesh would be exposed to the processing chamber environment and the plasma.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing of the floating mesh from the outer diameter of the body because Hollingsworth teaches/suggests that the floating mesh functions to shield the first side/top surface of the substrate support from the heating element wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the size (i.e. the length the floating mesh that extends towards the outer diameter) is understood to be a result-effective variable which affects the ability of the floating mesh to shield the top surface/first side of the substrate support from the heating element and because Shamouilian teaches/suggests that embedding a conductive element/electrode (i.e. floating mesh) in a dielectric body enables electrically insulating the conductive element/electrode to prevent exposure to the plasma in the chamber (col 5 line 19-23) wherein in one of ordinary skill would optimize the spacing of the floating mesh from the outer diameter of the body to ensure the floating electrode functions optimally to shield the top surface/first side of the substrate support from the heating element while also optimizing prevention of exposure and shorting to the plasma in the chamber.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth"), and Singhal et al. (US 2022/0122872 A1 hereinafter “Singhal”) applied to claims 2, 12 above and further in view of Gomm (US 2018/0350649 A1), Yang et al. (US 2014/0034239 A1 hereinafter “Yang”) and Flanigan et al. (US 6,081,414 hereinafter “Flanigan”).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Lin '198 in view of Lin '494, Hollingsworth, and Singhal teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 and 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach a spoke mesh coupled to the active far edge electrode and disposed below the active far edge electrode and the chucking electrode, wherein the floating mesh is disposed a distance of between about 0.5 mm and about 2.0 mm below the spoke mesh.
However, Gomm teaches a substrate support (comprising platen 200, Fig. 3, para. [0028], abstract) comprising a spoke mesh (comprising power distribution circuit 208 including outer ring 212 and arms 214, Fig. 3) coupled to the active far edge electrode (comprising outer ring shaped electrode 202, Fig. 3) and disposed below the active far edge electrode (comprising 202, Fig. 3) and the chucking electrode (comprising electrostatic clamping electrodes 204 and 206, Fig. 3) (para. [0028]). Gomm teaches that such a configuration enables distributing power to the active far edge electrode (comprising 202, Fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a spoke mesh coupled to the active far edge electrode and disposed below the active far edge electrode and the chucking electrode because Gomm teaches this is a known suitable alternative configuration of a substrate support for supplying power to the active far edge electrode (Gomm: para. [0028]).
Lin '198 in view of Lin '494, Hollingsworth, Singhal and Gomm as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the floating mesh is disposed a distance of between about 0.5 mm and about 2.0 mm below the spoke mesh.
However, Yang teaches a substrate support (comprising work support pedestal 200, Fig. 1A) comprising an electrostatic chuck (para. [0043]) having a body (comprising puck 202, Fig.1A) with a thickness of less than 25 mm for high thermal conductively material such as aluminum nitride or about 10 mm for low thermal conductivity material such as aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide wherein as the thickness of the body (comprising puck 202, Fig. 1A) increases the thermal resistance and the cost increases (para. [0053]). In other words, Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which affects thermal resistance and cost. Examiner further notes that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body.
Examiner additionally notes that Lin '198 teaches that the body can comprising aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide (para. [0034]).
Further, Flanigan teaches a substrate support (comprising pedestal assembly 104, Fig. 2, col 4 line 7-17) comprising an electrostatic chuck (comprising 105, Fig. 2) wherein the distance/thickness between the electrodes (comprising heater electrode 222 and chucking electrodes 224, Fig. 2) disposed inside the body of the electrostatic chuck affects the capacitance between the electrodes and ultimately affects the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support (col 7 line 55-col 8 line 6). In other words, Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck such as the distance between a floating mesh and a spoke mesh is a result-effective variable which has an effect on the capacitance between the conductive parts (i.e. between floating mesh and a spoke mesh) and ultimately the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Examiner notes that Lin '198 teaches that the substrate support is coupled to RF power (para. [0065]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize both the thickness of the body and the distance between the floating mesh and the spoke mesh because Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the thermal resistance and cost wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body and because Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck (i.e. the distance between the floating mesh and a spoke mesh) is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the capacitance between the conductive parts and the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth"), Shamouilian et al. (US 6,478,924 B1 hereinafter “Shamouilian”) as applied to claims 3 and 13 above and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2014/0034239 A1 hereinafter “Yang”) and Flanigan et al. (US 6,081,414 hereinafter “Flanigan”).
Regarding claim 5, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494, Hollingsworth and Shamouilian {hereinafter “modified Lin ‘198} teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 3 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the heating element is disposed a distance of between about 4 mm and about 6 mm below the floating mesh.
However, Yang teaches a substrate support (comprising work support pedestal 200, Fig. 1A) comprising an electrostatic chuck (para. [0043]) having a body (comprising puck 202, Fig.1A) with a thickness of less than 25 mm for high thermal conductively material such as aluminum nitride or about 10 mm for low thermal conductivity material such as aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide wherein as the thickness of the body (comprising puck 202, Fig. 1A) increases the thermal resistance and the cost increases (para. [0053]). In other words, Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which affects thermal resistance and cost. Examiner further notes that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body.
Examiner additionally notes that Lin '198 teaches that the body can comprising aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide (para. [0034]).
Further, Flanigan teaches a substrate support (comprising pedestal assembly 104, Fig. 2, col 4 line 7-17) comprising an electrostatic chuck (comprising 105, Fig. 2) wherein the distance/thickness between the electrodes (comprising heater electrode 222 and chucking electrodes 224, Fig. 2) disposed inside the body of the electrostatic chuck affects the capacitance between the electrodes and ultimately affects the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support (col 7 line 55-col 8 line 6). In other words, Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck such as the distance between a heating element and a floating mesh is a result-effective variable which has an effect on the capacitance between the conductive parts (i.e. between heating element and floating mesh) and ultimately the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Examiner notes that Lin '198 teaches that the substrate support is coupled to RF power (para. [0065]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize both the thickness of the body and the distance between the heating element and the floating mesh because Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the thermal resistance and cost wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body and because Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck (i.e. the distance between the heating element and floating mesh) is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the capacitance between the conductive parts and the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Regarding claim 6, Lin '198 in view of Lin '494, Hollingsworth, Shamouilian, Yang and Flanigan teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 5 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the ground mesh is disposed distance between about 3 mm and about 5 mm below the heating element.
However, Yang teaches a substrate support (comprising work support pedestal 200, Fig. 1A) comprising an electrostatic chuck (para. [0043]) having a body (comprising puck 202, Fig.1A) with a thickness of less than 25 mm for high thermal conductively material such as aluminum nitride or about 10 mm for low thermal conductivity material such as aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide wherein as the thickness of the body (comprising puck 202, Fig. 1A) increases the thermal resistance and the cost increases (para. [0053]). In other words, Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which affects thermal resistance and cost. Examiner further notes that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body.
Examiner additionally notes that Lin '198 teaches that the body can comprising aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide (para. [0034]).
Further, Flanigan teaches a substrate support (comprising pedestal assembly 104, Fig. 2, col 4 line 7-17) comprising an electrostatic chuck (comprising 105, Fig. 2) wherein the distance/thickness between the electrodes (comprising heater electrode 222 and chucking electrodes 224, Fig. 2) disposed inside the body of the electrostatic chuck affects the capacitance between the electrodes and ultimately affects the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support (col 7 line 55-col 8 line 6). In other words, Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck such as the distance between a heating element and a ground mesh is a result-effective variable which has an effect on the capacitance between the conductive parts (i.e. between heating element and ground mesh) and ultimately the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Examiner notes that Lin '198 teaches that the substrate support is coupled to RF power (para. [0065]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize both the thickness of the body and the distance between the heating element and the floating mesh because Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the thermal resistance and cost wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body and because Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck (i.e. the distance between the heating element and ground mesh) is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the capacitance between the conductive parts and the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth"), Shamouilian et al. (US 6,478,924 B1 hereinafter “Shamouilian”), Yang et al. (US 2014/0034239 A1 hereinafter “Yang”) and Flanigan et al. (US 6,081,414 hereinafter “Flanigan”) as applied to claims 5, 6 above and further in view of and further in view of Hara et al. (US 2022/0112599 A1 hereinafter “Hara”).
Regarding claim 7, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494, Hollingsworth, Shamouilian, Yang and Flanigan {hereinafter “modified Lin ‘198”} teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that the ground mesh is disposed a distance of between 1.5 mm and about 3.5 mm above the second side.
However, Hara teaches a substrate support (comprising 20, Fig. 3 and 4) including a ground mesh (comprising planar shield electrode 50, Fig. 3, para. [0036]; comprising planar shield portion 52, Fig. 4, para. [0037]) disposed a distance of 3 mm or more above the second side (comprising back surface 21b, Fig. 4) (para. [0014]). Hara teaches that such a configuration is suitable for preventing coupling between plasma that has flowed around to the second side/back surface side (para. [0014]-[0015]). Note: taught range of 3 mm or more overlaps with claimed range of 1.5 mm and 3.5 mm.
Examiner notes that modified Lin ‘198 teaches that the ground mesh (Lin ‘494: comprising 320, Fig. 4A) also functions to prevent plasma from forming below the second side/bottom surface (para. [0042]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the ground mesh a distance such as 3 mm or more above the second side (i.e. bottom surface of the body) because Hara teaches that such a distance is suitable for preventing coupling between plasma that has flowed around to the second side (Hara: para. [0014]-[0015]). Furthermore, the courts have held that the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)(See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”) and Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth") as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Nishizuka (US 2012/0208369 A1).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494 and Hollingsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, above.
Lin ‘198 further teaches a power source (comprising common power source 550, Fig. 5B, para. [0065]), wherein the power source supplies the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B).
Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494 and Hollingsworth as applied above does not explicitly teach that the power source is configured to provide a low frequency pulse between 0.2 Hz and 20 Hz.
However, Lin ‘198 teaches that the power source to the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B) comprises both a chucking power and an RF bias power wherein the bias power facilitates directing plasma species towards the substrate (comprising 121, Fig. 5B) (para. [0033], [0061],[0064]-[0065]).
Additionally, Nishizuka teaches that an RF bias power applied to the substrate support (comprising substrate holder 140, Fig. 4) for directing plasma species toward the substrate (i.e. “accelerating ionized gases towards the substrate”) can be pulsed at a frequency of 1Hz, 2Hz, 4Hz, 6Hz, 8Hz, 10Hz, 20Hz, 30 Hz, 50 Hz, or greater(para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the power source to supply a pulsed power to the chucking electrode (Lin ‘198: comprising 542, Fig. 5B) with a low frequency pulse between 0.2 Hz and 20 Hz (i.e. 1Hz, 2Hz, 4Hz, 6Hz, 8Hz, 10Hz, 20Hz as taught by Nishizuka) because Lin ‘198 already teaches the chucking electrode is configured to receive RF bias power for directing plasma species towards the substrate (para. [0033], [0061], [0064]-[0065]) and because Nishizuka teaches that such a pulsed RF bias power supply configuration is known to be suitable for directing plasma species towards the substrate (Nishizuka: para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494, Hollingsworth and Nishizuka teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 8, above.
Lin ‘198 further teaches wherein the active far edge electrode (comprising 544, Fig. 5B) is configured to operate independently of the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B) (para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494, Hollingsworth and Nishizuka teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 9 and 18 as applied above.
Lin ‘198 further teaches wherein the active far edge electrode (comprising 544, Fig. 5B) is configured to operate from the power source (comprising 550, Fig. 5B) coupled to the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B) (para. [0065]).
Claim(s) 15, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth"), and Singhal et al. (US 2022/0122872 A1 hereinafter “Singhal”) applied to claims 2, 12 above and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2014/0034239 A1 hereinafter “Yang”) and Flanigan et al. (US 6,081,414 hereinafter “Flanigan”).
Regarding claim 15, Lin '198 in view of Lin '494, Hollingsworth, and Singhal teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 and 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the heating element is disposed a distance of between about 4 mm and about 6 mm below the floating mesh.
However, Yang teaches a substrate support (comprising work support pedestal 200, Fig. 1A) comprising an electrostatic chuck (para. [0043]) having a body (comprising puck 202, Fig.1A) with a thickness of less than 25 mm for high thermal conductively material such as aluminum nitride or about 10 mm for low thermal conductivity material such as aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide wherein as the thickness of the body (comprising puck 202, Fig. 1A) increases the thermal resistance and the cost increases (para. [0053]). In other words, Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which affects thermal resistance and cost. Examiner further notes that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body.
Examiner additionally notes that Lin '198 teaches that the body can comprising aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide (para. [0034]).
Further, Flanigan teaches a substrate support (comprising pedestal assembly 104, Fig. 2, col 4 line 7-17) comprising an electrostatic chuck (comprising 105, Fig. 2) wherein the distance/thickness between the electrodes (comprising heater electrode 222 and chucking electrodes 224, Fig. 2) disposed inside the body of the electrostatic chuck affects the capacitance between the electrodes and ultimately affects the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support (col 7 line 55-col 8 line 6). In other words, Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck such as the distance between a heating element and a floating mesh is a result-effective variable which has an effect on the capacitance between the conductive parts (i.e. between heating element and floating mesh) and ultimately the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Examiner notes that Lin '198 teaches that the substrate support is coupled to RF power (para. [0065]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize both the thickness of the body and the distance between the heating element and the floating mesh because Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the thermal resistance and cost wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body and because Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck (i.e. the distance between the heating element and floating mesh) is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the capacitance between the conductive parts and the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Regarding claim 16, Lin '198 in view of Lin '494, Hollingsworth, Singhal, Yang and Flanigan teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 15 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the ground mesh is disposed distance between about 3 mm and about 5 mm below the heating element.
However, Yang teaches a substrate support (comprising work support pedestal 200, Fig. 1A) comprising an electrostatic chuck (para. [0043]) having a body (comprising puck 202, Fig.1A) with a thickness of less than 25 mm for high thermal conductively material such as aluminum nitride or about 10 mm for low thermal conductivity material such as aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide wherein as the thickness of the body (comprising puck 202, Fig. 1A) increases the thermal resistance and the cost increases (para. [0053]). In other words, Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which affects thermal resistance and cost. Examiner further notes that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body.
Examiner additionally notes that Lin '198 teaches that the body can comprising aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide (para. [0034]).
Further, Flanigan teaches a substrate support (comprising pedestal assembly 104, Fig. 2, col 4 line 7-17) comprising an electrostatic chuck (comprising 105, Fig. 2) wherein the distance/thickness between the electrodes (comprising heater electrode 222 and chucking electrodes 224, Fig. 2) disposed inside the body of the electrostatic chuck affects the capacitance between the electrodes and ultimately affects the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support (col 7 line 55-col 8 line 6). In other words, Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck such as the distance between a heating element and a ground mesh is a result-effective variable which has an effect on the capacitance between the conductive parts (i.e. between heating element and ground mesh) and ultimately the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Examiner notes that Lin '198 teaches that the substrate support is coupled to RF power (para. [0065]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize both the thickness of the body and the distance between the heating element and the floating mesh because Yang teaches/suggests an exemplary thickness of the body and that the thickness of the body is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the thermal resistance and cost wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the vertical distances between the embedded conductive parts in the body (i.e. chucking electrode, spoke mesh, floating mesh, heating element, ground mesh) is limited by the thickness of the body and because Flanigan teaches/suggests the distance between conductive parts embedded in the body of the chuck (i.e. the distance between the heating element and ground mesh) is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to optimize the capacitance between the conductive parts and the path of the RF power supplied to the substrate support.
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter “Lin '198”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), Hollingsworth et al. (US 2024/0128062 A1 hereinafter "Hollingsworth"), and Singhal et al. (US 2022/0122872 A1 hereinafter “Singhal”), Yang et al. (US 2014/0034239 A1 hereinafter “Yang”) and Flanigan et al. (US 6,081,414 hereinafter “Flanigan”) as applied above in claims 15, 16 and further in view of Hara et al. (US 2022/0112599 A1 hereinafter “Hara”).
Regarding claim 17, Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494, Hollingsworth, Singhal, Yang and Flanigan {hereinafter “modified Lin ‘198”} teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 16 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that the ground mesh is disposed a distance of between 1.5 mm and about 3.5 mm above the second side.
However, Hara teaches a substrate support (comprising 20, Fig. 3 and 4) including a ground mesh (comprising planar shield electrode 50, Fig. 3, para. [0036]; comprising planar shield portion 52, Fig. 4, para. [0037]) disposed a distance of 3 mm or more above the second side (comprising back surface 21b, Fig. 4) (para. [0014]). Hara teaches that such a configuration is suitable for preventing coupling between plasma that has flowed around to the second side/back surface side (para. [0014]-[0015]). Note: taught range of 3 mm or more overlaps with claimed range of 1.5 mm and 3.5 mm.
Examiner notes that modified Lin ‘198 teaches that the ground mesh (Lin ‘494: comprising 320, Fig. 4A) also functions to prevent plasma from forming below the second side/bottom surface (para. [0042]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the ground mesh a distance such as 3 mm or more above the second side (i.e. bottom surface of the body) because Hara teaches that such a distance is suitable for preventing coupling between plasma that has flowed around to the second side (Hara: para. [0014]-[0015]). Furthermore, the courts have held that the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)(See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lin ‘198 {i.e. Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘494, Hollingsworth, Singhal, Yang, Flanigan, and Hara} teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 17 as applied above and Lin ‘198 further teaches wherein the active far edge electrode (comprising 544, Fig. 5B) is configured to operate independently of the chucking electrode (comprising 542, Fig. 5B) (para. [0065]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 2023/0054444 A1) teaches a substrate support (comprising 700, Fig. 7) including a floating mesh (comprising 755, Fig. 7) disposed above a heating element (comprising 745, Fig. 7)(para. [0070]), wherein the floating mesh helps balance an RF impedance bout the surface of a substrate support (para. [0011]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716