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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 28 April 2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 17 are amended. Claims 8 and 18 are canceled.
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.
Examiner notes that Specification para. [0028] recites “The body 202 thickness between the first side 216 and the second side 224 is between 18 mm and 22 mm, such as about 20 mm” and it appears that reference numeral 290 of Fig. 2B refers to the thickness recited in para. [0028]. Correction/amendment of para. [0028] to include reference numeral 290 as referring to the thickness between the first side 216 and the second side 216 would overcome the drawing objection.
Specification
Specification filed 28 April 2026 is acknowledged and accepted. Specification objection discussed in the non-final rejection of 28 Jan 2026 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the Specification.
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) rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph discussed in the non-final rejection of 28 Jan 2026 is/are withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as further discussed below.
Claim 9 (and dependent claim 10) and 20 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 9, the claim is dependent on deleted claim 8. Thus, the scope of claim 9 is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, claim 9 is interpreted to be dependent claim 1.
In light of the above, dependent claim 10 is also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is dependent on deleted claim 18. Thus, the scope of claim 20 is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, claim 20 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 11.
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.
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Applied Materials, Inc not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Li et al. (US2023/005444A1 hereinafter “Li”) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”) and Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”).
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]; examiner notes that the chucking electrode 542 functions has both a chucking electrode and an RF electrode as disclosed in 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 and directly facing the heating element through the body.
However, Li teaches a substrate support (comprising substrate support assembly 700, Fig. 7, para. [0060],[0070]) comprising a floating mesh (comprising mesh 755, Fig. 7, para. [0011], [0027],[0070],[0071]) disposed below the chucking electrode (comprising electrode 720a and/or 720b, Fig. 7, para. [0062]-[0064]; examiner notes that electrodes 720a and 720 b function as both chucking electrodes and RF electrodes as disclosed in para. [0062]-[0065]) and a heating element (comprising heater 745, Fig. 7, para. [0068]) disposed below the floating mesh (comprising 755, Fig. 7). Li teaches that such a configuration enables decoupling the chucking electrode (comprising 720a and/or 720b, Fig. 7) from the heating element (comprising 745, Fig. 7) and may help reduce the frequency sensitivity of the processing operations (para. [0027],[0073]).
Examiner notes that the chucking electrodes of both Lin ‘198 and Li are configured to be both chucking electrode and RF electrode (Lin ‘198: para. [0065]; Li: para. [0062]-[0065]).
Regarding claims 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 Li teaches that such a configuration enables decoupling the chucking electrode from the heating element and may help reduce frequency sensitivity of the processing operations.
Lin ‘198 in view of Li as applied above does not explicitly teach a ground mesh disposed below the heating element, wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body.
However, Lin '494 teaches a substrate support (comprising pedestal 128, Fig. 4A, para. [0038]) a body (comprising 415, Fig. 4A, para. [0038]), a ground mesh (comprising ground mesh 320, Fig. 4A, para. [0036], [0037], [0040]-[0042]) embedded in the body and 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) and directly facing the heating element (comprising 400C-F, Fig. 4A) through the body (comprising 415, 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 and directly facing the heating element through the body 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.
Regarding claim 9, Lin ‘198 in view of Li, Lin ‘494 teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 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 11 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) 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”) and Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”) as applied to claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 20 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 Li and Lin ‘494 teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, above.
Lin ‘198 in view of Li and Lin ‘494 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 chuck (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 adjusted 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”) and Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”) as applied to claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 20 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 Li and Lin ‘494 teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, above.
Lin ‘198 in view of Lin ‘198 in view of Li and Lin ‘494 does not explicitly teach wherein the floating mesh is spaced about 2 mm to about 3 mm from the outer diameter.
However, Li teaches the floating mesh (comprising 755, Fig. 7) is a conductive material (para. [0071]) which decouples the chucking electrodes (comprising 720a and/or 720b, Fig. 7) from the heating element (comprising 745, Fig. 7) (para. [0011], [0027], [0073]).
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 Li teaches that the floating mesh comprises a conductive material and decouples the chucking electrode 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 one of ordinary skill would optimize the spacing of the floating mesh from the outer diameter of the body to ensure the floating mesh functions optimally to decouple the chucking electrode from the heating element the substrate support from the heating element while also optimizing prevention of exposure and shorting of the conductive material of the floating mesh 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”) and Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”) 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 Li, Lin '494, 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 Li, Lin '494, 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”) and Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), and 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 Li, Lin ‘494, 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 Li, Lin '494, 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”), Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), 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 Li, Lin ‘494, 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) 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”), Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), 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 Li, Lin '494, 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 Li, Lin '494, 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 Li et al. (US2023/0054444 A1 hereinafter “Li”), Lin et al. (US 2017/0306494 A1 hereinafter “Lin '494”), 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 Li, Lin ‘494, 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 11, the proposed modification to Lin '198 according to Lin '494 and Hollingsworth does not render obvious the claimed invention because it would be unreasonable for one skilled in the art to modify the Faraday cage of Hollingsworth having one of the metal layers 210, 212 grounded and the other electrically floating.
Examiner responds independent claim 1 and 11 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 28 April 2026. Currently claim 1 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin ‘198 in view of Li and Lin ‘494 wherein Li teaches/suggests a floating mesh between the chucking electrode and the heating element as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Hollingsworth is no longer cited in the current rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward combining Hollingsworth with the prior art of record are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 11, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body and even if Hollingsworth were applied to Lin '198 according to Lin '494 it would not result in the configuration of the claimed invention, but an apparatus with two separate metal layers disposed below the heating element, one grounded and one not.
Examiner responds independent claim 1 and 11 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 28 April 2026. Currently claim 1 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin ‘198 in view of Li and Lin ‘494 wherein Li teaches/suggests a floating mesh between the chucking electrode and the heating element as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Hollingsworth is no longer cited in the current rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward combining Hollingsworth with the prior art of record are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) Singhal does not teach at least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body."
Examiner responds that Singhal is cited to teach the limitations of claims 2 and 12 and not cited to teach claim 1 and 11 limitation "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body."
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 2 and 12, it would not be obvious to provide the far edge electrode at a distance of 2 mm or 3 mm from the first side in view of Singhal because Singhal teaches varying the electrode distance in the electrostatic chuck body results in altered resistance and chucking force which is a drastically different purpose from the far edge electrode of claim 2 and 12, which the present application teaches is used for denser plasma at substrate edge and reducing the edge exclusion region.
Examiner responds that the far edge electrode of Lin ‘198 teaches providing the chucking electrode and the far edge electrode at a same distance from the first side. Additionally, Singhal teaches/suggests disposing the chucking electrode a distance of 2 mm or 3 mm below wherein the distance between the chucking electrode and the first side is a result-effective variable which affects resistance and chucking force. Thus, it would be obvious 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.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 9-upper page 10) Lin '198 does not teach that the inner electrode 542 and outer electrode 544 (which the Examiner has mapped to the chucking and active far edge electrodes, respectively, of the present claims) are the same distance from the top surface 202 since Lin '198 para. [0058] discloses that the distance between electrode 542 and top surface 202 may be the same as the distance between the outer electrode 544 and the top surface of the annular shoulder 236.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and further explains that para. [0058] discloses that the chucking electrode 542 and the far edge electrode 544 are coplanar and Fig. 5B shows that the chucking electrode 542 and far edge electrode 544 are the same distance from the top surface 202.
Applicant argues (remarks page 10) Shamouilian does not teach at least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body" as now recited in amended claims 1 and 11.
Examiner responds that Shamouilian is cited to teach the limitations of claim 3 and 13. Shamouilian is not cited to teach claim 1 and 11 limitation least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body."
Applicant argues (remarks page 11) Gomm, Yang, and Flannigan do not teach at least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body" as now recited in amended claims 1 and 11.
Examiner responds Gomm, Yang, and Flannigan are cited to teach limitations of the dependent claims, as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Gomm, Yang, and Flannigan are not cited to teach claim 1 and 11 limitations.
Applicant argues (remarks page 11) Yang and Flannigan, alone or in combination, do not cure the deficiencies of Lin '198, Lin '494, Hollingsworth and Singhal as they do not teach at least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body" as now recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds Flannigan is cited to teach limitations of the dependent claims, as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Flannigan is not cited to teach claim 1 and 11 limitations.
Applicant argues (remarks page 11-12) Hara does not teach at least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body" as now recited in amended claims 1 and 11.
Examiner responds Hara is cited to teach claim 17 and 19 limitations. Hara is not cited to teach claim 1 and 11 limitations.
Applicant argues (remarks page 12) Nishizuka does not teach at least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body" as now recited in amended claims 1 and 11.
Examiner responds that Nishizuka was cited to teach claim 8 and 18 limitations. However, Nishizuka is no longer cited in the current rejections since Applicant has cancelled claims 8 and 18. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Nishizuka are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 12) Yang and Flanigan do not teach at least "wherein the ground mesh is adjacent the second side and directly facing the heating element through the body" as now recited in amended claims 1 and 11.
Examiner responds Yang and Flanigan are cited to teach the limitations of dependent claims, as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Yang and Flanigan are not cited to teach independent claim 1 and 11 limitations.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected. Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-20 are also rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights