DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 14-17 and 41-48 in the reply filed on April 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14, 16, 17 and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kholodenko et al (US 6,490,145) in view of Matyushkin et al (US 2018/0012785).
Regarding claim 14:
The prior art of Kholodenko et al teaches an electrostatic chuck 102 (substrate support component) of a substrate support (pedestal 116) comprising: an integrally formed insulator body (chuck body 206) comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the first surface is configured to retain a first body (upper portion) of the substrate support comprising an electrically conductive material (electrodes 208) , the second surface is configured to affix the insulator body 206 to a second body (lower portion) of the substrate support, wherein the second body comprises an electrically conductive material (electrodes see coll. 7 lines 50 and 51 where electrodes can be provided to either upper/lower portions of both upper/lower portions), and one or more gas conduits (plenum 280 and outlets 210 using gas channel 248 see col. 7 lines 8-16) within the insulator body 206, the one or more gas conduits extending from the first surface to the second surface and forming a gas flow path from the first surface to the second surface, each of the one or more gas conduits comprising a gas conductance plug (porous plug 244). See Kholodenko et al col. 8 lines 6-21 where Kholodenko et al teaches the porous plug 244 (gas conductance plug) is positioned in a portion of the passage 248 (gas conduit) disposed in the upper portion 260 of the chuck body 206. The porous plugs 244 prevent arcing and plasma ignition of the backside gas during processing by blocking a direct current path through the backside gas between the substrate and portions of the chuck 102 in the passage 248 near the electrodes 208. See Fig. 2 of Kholodenko et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
773
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
546
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Kholodenko et al fails to teach that a thickness of the insulator body exceeds an arcing threshold between the first body and the second body when the insulator body is arranged between the first body and the second body.
The prior art of Matyushkin et al teaches an electrostatic chuck (substrate support with an electrode/electrically conductive material) with features for preventing electrical arcing see [0022] and [0023]. Note Matyushkin et al further teaches a porous ceramic plugs are provided in heat transfer gas supply conduits. According to [0022] – [0024] Matyushkin et al teaches how adjusting the thickness of the insulator, creating gaps, introducing porous ceramic plugs can affect the arc threshold and can even exceed the arc threshold.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al to ensure that thickness of the insulator body exceeds an arcing threshold between the first body and the second body when the insulator body is arranged between the first body and the second body.
Regarding claim 16: The substrate support component of claim 14, wherein the gas conductance plug obstructs the electrical discharge path for a threshold voltage difference between the first surface and the second surface of the insulator body. According to Kholodenko et al col. 8 lines 6-21 the porous plug 244 is positioned in a portion of the passage 248 disposed in the upper portion of the chuck body 206. The porous plugs 244 prevent arcing and plasma ignition of the backside gas during processing by blocking a direct current path through the backside gas between the substrate and portions of the chuck 102 in the passage 248 near the electrodes 208. See Fig. 2 of Kholodenko et al
Regarding claim 17: The substrate support component of claim 16, wherein gas conductance plug 244 forms a convoluted gas flow path 270 from a first surface of the gas conductance plug to a second surface of the gas conductance plug having the threshold gas conductance. See Fig. 2 of Kholodenko et al and note the position of the plug 244 relative to gas flow path 270.
Regarding claim 41: The substrate support component of claim 14, wherein the one or more gas conduits further comprises a second portion having a second conductance, wherein the second portion is arranged between the first portion and the second surface. See Fig. 2 of Kholodenko et al and note the position of the plug 244 relative to gas flow path 270.
Regarding claim 42: The substrate support component of claim 41, wherein the second portion comprises a diameter smaller than a diameter of the first portion. See Fig. 2 of Kholodenko et al and note the difference in diameters of the upper and lower
Regarding claim 43: See col. 7 line 14 – col 8 line 21 of Kholodenko et al where a plurality of conduits (passage 248) are recited and a plug 244 is to be provided within each conduits. See also the prior art of Matyushkin et al teaches having a plurality of conduits and a respective gas plug (ceramic porous plugs) in each heat transfer gas supply conduit in [0023] in order to eliminate structural voids in the electrostatic chuck.
Regarding claim 44: The substrate support component of claim 14, wherein the insulator body (chuck body 206) comprises a first material (col. 5 lines 54-67 recites that the body 206 is made of aluminum, ceramic, dielectric or a combination thereof) while the gas conductance plug comprises a second material (ceramic material such as aluminum oxide/alumina or aluminum nitride). The plug is porous and has a porosity of about 40 to about 80 percent. See Kholodenko et al see col. 7 lines 24-28.
Regarding claim 45: The substrate support component of claim 17, wherein the gas conductance plug comprises a gas conductance based on an internal structure of the gas conductance plug. Kholodenko et al teaches that the gas conductance plug (plug 244) is porous. The pores in the plug affect the gas conductance.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kholodenko et al (US 6,490,145) in view of Matyushkin et al (US 2018/0012785) as applied to claims 14, 16, 17 and 41-45 above and in further view of Perigo et al (US 2022/0324025).
The combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 15: The substrate support component of claim 14, wherein the insulator body further comprises a lattice region defining a volume embedded within the insulator body and comprising at least a threshold impedance.
The prior art of Perigo et al teaches a method and system for additive manufacturing of electrical devices. See Fig. 9 which illustrates an insulating layer having an insulating layer having a honeycomb lattice. According to [0068] of Perigo et al an insulating layer 198 can be provided with hollow structures or portions 197 with insulating layers 180, 186, and 194. The motivation of providing these hollow structures or portions 197 which yields the honeycomb lattice according to [0069] is that this design provides a reduction in material, allow those areas to be under vacuum or filled with gas and would provide a relatively high electrical breakdown strength for the electrical device. Thus, it would have been obvious to further the modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide these hollow structures or portions which yields the honeycomb lattice as suggested by Perigo et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
750
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kholodenko et al (US 6,490,145) in view of Matyushkin et al (US 2018/0012785) applied to claims 14, 16, 17 and 41-45 above and in further view of Donde et al (US 5,720,818).
The combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 46: The substrate support component of claim 45, wherein the gas conductance of the gas conductance plug depends in part on a variable porosity of the gas conductance plug.
Regarding claim 48: Recall Kholodenko et al teaches that the porous plug 244 is made of a ceramic material with a porosity of about 40-80 percent. Kholodenko et al fails to that the gas conductance plug comprises variable porosity along an axis of the gas flow path.
The prior art of Donde et al teaches conduits for flow of heat transfer fluid to the surface of the electrostatic chuck is provided with gas conductance plugs (inserts 406/ 300/420). According to col. 10 lines 7-25 the insert 420 is a porous dielectric such as alumina with a varying porosity ranging 10-60% volume. According to Donde et al using a porous gas conductance plug improves resistance to penetration of plasma received. The orientation and distribution of the porosity is a matter of optimization that would be determined without undue routine experimentation as the orientation and distribution of the porosity would be optimized in order to produce the desired gas flow passageways to achieve the gas flow desired. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gas conductance plug of variable porosity as suggested by Donde et al.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 47: The substrate support component of claim 14, wherein the one or more gas conduits further comprise a sleeve surrounding an outer circumference of the gas conductance plug, wherein there is no radial gap between the gas conductance plug and the sleeve.
See Fig. 3A of Donde et al and col 7 lines 24-26 where it is discussed that the insert 300 is formed with a boss 301 (sleeve). Fig 3B of Donde et al also illustrated dielectric insert sleeve 320 which is fitted into socket hole 335. See also Fig. 6D featuring sleeve 616 and porous dielectric insert 618.
The motivation to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al with the sleeve suggested by Donde et al is that it provides a way to seal the gas conductance plug into gas conduit to enhance the seal and prevent flow leaks. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kholodenko et al and Matyushkin et al to use a sleeve for the gas conductance plug to enhance the gas conductance plug in the gas conduit and prevent gaps and gas flow leaks.
PNG
media_image4.png
368
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goto et al (US 8,034,177) teaches a gas supply pipe with inner electrode (conductive plug) and an insulative member 103.
Venkatraman et al (US 2022/0208592) teaches an electrostatic chuck (substrate support) with coolant channels provided at different levels and thicknesses in the base.
Harris et al (WO 2010/019616A2) teaches a high gradient multilayer vacuum insulator (HGI) with increased resistance to vacuum arcing to improve electrical strength.
Holland et al (US 8,075,729) teaches a method and apparatus for controlling temperature of a substrate where a metallic base of the substrate support is provided with fluidly isolated conduit loops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights