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 invention II, claim 8 in the reply filed on 7/21/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are canceled, claim 8 is amended and claims 9-21 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 was amended to cite, “cause the processors to perform…” However, this is not fully and clearly supported by the written description. At best, [0017] states that there is only a processor 2a1 and does not cite anywhere of multiples of processors that execute/perform the processing. New claim 15 and 16 cite that the annular region has a plurality of zones, performing calculating the thermal resistance for each of the plurality of zones. However, this is not clearly and fully supported by the written description. At best, [0037] states that the central region 111a includes a plurality of zones 111c, not the annular region.
Also, the written description does not clearly and fully disclose calculating the thermal resistance for each of the zones 111c. Regarding new claim 21, there is no clear or full support in the written description of being based on change between the plurality of the thermal resistances. There is no mention of relative changes, comparisons or changes between the plurality of thermal resistances to determine whether to further repeat the forming the plasma and the calculating the thermal resistance. Claims 9-21 are also rejected by dependency to claim 8. Claims 17-20 are also rejected by dependency to rejected claim 16.
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.
Claims 8-21 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation of “cause the processors.” However, multiple processors were not previously introduced, and it is unclear how multiple processors came into existence when only one processor was introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 cites that a determination result in the determining whether to repeat. However, this statement is unclear because it is missing what is determined to be repeated. It also cites, a plurality of the thermal resistances. However, multiple thermal resistances were not previously introduced, and it is unclear what exactly they are referring to/their provenance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 cites, at least one heater then later cites, at least one of the heaters. It is unclear if it is definitively claiming a single heater or multiple heaters, and the phrasing should be consistent throughout unless specifically clarified.
Claim 12 cites, the thermal resistance between the ring assembly and the at least one heater. However, this was not previously introduced because the only thermal resistance introduced was that between the electrostatic chuck and the ring assembly. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, dependent claims 9-21 are rejected by dependency to claim 8. Claims 11-13, 16-20 are also rejected by dependency to rejected claim 10. Claim 21 is also rejected by dependency to rejected claim 9.
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) 8-13, 15, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (US 20200176228) in view of McChesney (US 20160211165).
Regarding claim 8. Oka teaches in the drawings a plasma processing apparatus (plasma processing apparatus 10 [33], figs. 1, 9, 14-16) comprising: a chamber (plasma process chamber 12 [33]); an electrostatic chuck (ESC 18 [34]) disposed in the chamber (fig. 1, 9, 14-16), the electrostatic chuck including a central region and an annular region (fig. 2, 19 central and peripheral annular regions 75ab [51]), the central region supporting a substrate ([51]) and the annular region surrounding the central region (fig. 2 19) and supporting a ring assembly ([51] supports focus ring FR assembly); and a processor (control unit 100 [48] fig. 3, 10) coupled to a memory (storage unit/memory medium 104 [61]) storing instructions (control program [61]) that, when executed by the processor (executed by 102 part of 100 [62]), cause the processors to perform forming a plasma in the chamber ([61-69], plasma processing is part of the control/recipe program used by 100/102 to execute processing in 10, where plasma formed inside 12 heats up FR); calculating a thermal resistance between the electrostatic chuck and the ring assembly ([91-115, 117-127, 135, 144, 145, 161 162, 204] thermal resistance between ESC and FR is used to determine thickness of FR);
and determining, based on the calculated thermal resistance, whether to repeat the forming the plasma ([199-205] i.e. fig. 13, S18, S15’s occurring or not, which includes ignition/plasma processing/forming [202-204], being repeated, i.e. after a transient state S11 when plasma was formed, fig. 5, 6, is based at least on the yes/no status of S12 involving the thickness zFR, thus also being based on the calculated stored thermal resistance RthA, [163, 102-123]) and the calculating the thermal resistance (calculating/computing a new thermal resistance is dependent/based on having the zFR determined/known, hence being based on a previous stored thermal resistance RthA being calculated as previously discussed, and no computing is done when RthA is unknown/undetermined [160-164]), but does not teach the control unit/processor, via said executing said instructions in the memory, causing disposing the ring assembly on the annular region of the electrostatic chuck; disposing the substrate on the central region of the electrostatic chuck.
However, McChesney teaches in [63-65] the system controller, which includes memory storing processing instructions, of the plasma processing apparatus processes discussed in the publication, such as fig. 14, causing disposing the ring assembly (step 910, adjust positioning edge coupling ring 60 [38]) on the annular region of the electrostatic chuck (fig. 3-8, 12-13b, annular 74 part of 60 on the matching annular edge of pedestal/ES chuck [46]); disposing the substrate on the central region of the electrostatic chuck (step 910, positioning wafer 33 on 20, which is on its center, fig. 3-8, 12-13b). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Oka in order to optimize the position of the focus/coupling ring before each processing [60] to optimize the edge coupling effect/etch rate/profile near the wafer edge [4].
Regarding claim 9. Oka in view of McChesney, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 8, the instructions further cause the processor to perform repeating the forming the plasma and the calculating thermal resistance (the said controller based/executing software by the controller of the plasma processing/forming occurs across multiple wafers in steps s15, 18 [202-204] as well as s15, 18 being after the transient state s11/having plasma formed figs. 5, 6, and multiple RthA/s13 are calculated again/repeatedly [204]), based on a determination result in the determining whether to repeat (s13 is based on a result of s12 being known as yes, and a result of s12 being no which also allows/permits execution of said plasma control/forming, including s15, s18, fig. 13), wherein the determining whether to repeat includes determining whether to further repeat the forming the plasma and the calculating the thermal resistance (as discussed, this is a cyclical process, as Fig. 13 when magnetic forces are controlled in new states [204] and for new/ensuing wafers, and since all instances of ensuing s13, s15, 18 are dependent on s12 being fulfilled, the process of fig. 13 will be repeated, hence the determining and results of s12 determines subsequent/ensuing s15, 18 and 13), based on a plurality of the thermal resistances calculated by repeating the forming the plasma and the calculating the thermal resistance (as discussed, s12 and its ensuing instances is based on zFR, which is based on multiples of RthA, esp when S13 is run for new magnetic fields/wafers [204], and each repeated RthA/s13 is based on at least a repeated transient/after a plasma forming state heat flux [135; furthermore, as discussed when s13 is run, an RthA/thermal resistance is calculated).
Regarding claim 10. Oka in view of McChesney, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform: controlling supply power supplied to at least one heater so that a temperature of the at least one heater reaches setting temperature (Fig. 13, step s10 of the controller process), the at least one heater being disposed in the electrostatic chuck (fig. 1, 2, 4, 9, 14-19, at least multiple heaters in the ESC such as 75 [245 246]); and measuring supply power supplied to the at least one of the heaters with a plasma being formed in the chamber (measures the heater power supply in the transient state w/ plasma in chamber after ignition [5 131-136] fig 5 6), and wherein in the calculating the thermal resistance, the thermal resistance is calculated based on the supply power measured with the plasma being formed in the chamber (said plasma based transient state power measured used to calc therm resistance [133 135]).
Regarding claim 11. Oka in view of McChesney teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform measuring supply power supplied to the at least one heater with no plasma being formed in the chamber (fig. 8, 13, said controller based/executing software by the controller, including the process of fig. 8, 13, such as s11 measures power to heater in non-ignition/no plasma state in chamber, fig. 5 6), and wherein in the calculating the thermal resistance, the thermal resistance is calculated further based on the supply power measured with no plasma being formed in the chamber (as discussed, [133-135] RthA calculated based on at least measured heater power in non-ignite state).
Regarding claim 12. Oka in view of McChesney teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in the calculating the thermal resistance, the thermal resistance is calculated ([91]) based on an equation ([91-115]) expressing a relationship among (a) an amount of heat transferred from the plasma to the ring assembly ([96 117]), (b) the thermal resistance between the ring assembly and the at least one heater ([70 90-91 97 98] fig. 4-6, the thermal resistance between FR and ESC, which is also between FR and HT2, fig. 4-6; also per [97 98] both the thermal R between FR/ESC and ESC/HT2 are considered, which is also the thermal R between FR and HT2) and (c) the supply power supplied to the at least one heater with the plasma being formed in the chamber (figs. 4-6, [0092]).
Regarding claim 13. Oka in view of McChesney teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein with the plasma being formed in the chamber, a temperature of the ring assembly changes over time by a thermal flux generated between the plasma and the ring assembly (this is an intended use of the apparatus and does not structurally limit or patentably distinguish from the prior art, MPEP 2114; furthermore, [0122] Tfr is directly dependent on qp i.e. thermal flux between plasma and FR, hence must change over time if qp changes).
Regarding claim 15. Oka in view of McChesney, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the annular region has a plurality of zones in a plan view of the annular region (fig. 19, 75b annular region 75b has 8 regions/divisions in plan view), and the instructions cause the processor to perform the calculating the thermal resistance for each of the plurality of zones ([246 247] the controller 100/102, which acts on the instructions, software, calculates zFR for each zone [247], which as discussed before is dependent on the RthA being calculated for the part have zFR determined, in this case, each zone).
Regarding claim 16. Oka in view of McChesney, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the annular region has a plurality of zones in a plan view of the annular region (as disc in claim 15), the at least one heater is disposed in each of the plurality of zones ([246]), and the instructions cause the processor to perform: the calculating the thermal resistance for each of the plurality of zones (see claim 15); controlling supply power for each of the plurality of zones ([246] controls heater supply to each zone); and the measuring supply power for each of the plurality of zones ([246] measures power supplied to the heater HT2 in each of the zones).
Regarding claim 21. Oka, in view of McChesney, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the determining whether to further repeat the forming the plasma and the calculating the thermal resistance is performed based on change between the plurality of the thermal resistances (as disc in claim 9, when repeating the plasma forming/calculating thermal resistance calc for new wafers, mag fields, there must be a newly calculated RthA stored in 104 [204] and thus it is based on a change in storage data/value from the old RthA data).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (US 20200176228) in view of McChesney (US 20160211165) and Zucker (US 20200365405).
Regarding claim 14. Oka in view of McChesney teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 8, but does not teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform: transferring with a transfer device, the ring assembly from outside the chamber to inside the chamber; and disposing with the transfer device, the ring assembly on at least partially on the electrostatic chuck. However, Zucker teaches in fig. 7 instructions further cause the processor to perform [49 50 130 131]: transferring with a transfer device (handling robot/effector [59]), the ring assembly from outside the chamber to inside the chamber ([59 113-116 128] transfer the focus rings from an external storage to inside a process chamber); and disposing with the transfer device, the ring assembly on at least partially on the electrostatic chuck (when the FR is loaded in the chamber, it is on at least part of the ESC [53 102], consistent w/ Oka). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Oka to provided automated/robot controlled/assisted replacement of consumable parts/maintenance [3], which would allow the reactor to be maintained at optimal processing conditions.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (US 20200176228) in view of McChesney (US 20160211165) and Endo (US 20210265143).
Regarding claim 17. Oka, in view of McChesney, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 16, but does not teach wherein at least one resistor is disposed, in the electrostatic chuck, in each of the plurality of zones, resistance of the at least one resistor varying with temperature, and the instructions cause the processor to perform the controlling supply power, in each of the plurality of zones, based on the resistance of the at least one resistor. However, Endo teaches fig. 3 at least one resistor 201 is disposed, in the electrostatic chuck 20, in each of the plurality of zones (in each of lateral zones/areas 211 [57], fig. 3), resistance of the at least one resistor varying with temperature ([63-68]), and the instructions cause the processor to perform the controlling supply power, in each of the plurality of zones, based on the resistance of the at least one resistor ([61-69], the measured resistance leads to measured voltage to temperature measured in each zone, which the controller uses to determine to output how much power/voltage to each zone). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Oka to be able to accurate control the zonal temperature based on feedback thermal detection [61-69].
Regarding claim 18. Oka, in view of McChesney and Endo teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the at least one resistor is at least one thermistor (the Endo based resistor is thermistor Endo [57]).
Regarding claim 19. Oka, in view of McChesney and Endo, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 17, wherein, in the electrostatic chuck, the at least one heater is disposed between the ring assembly and the at least one resistor in each of the plurality of zones (when Endo Fig. 3 is implemented in Oka Fig. 19 annular region w/zones, the annular region has FR on top fig. 18, 19, below is heater HT2, equivalent to Endo 200 then is resistor 201 from Endo).
Regarding claim 20. Oka, in view of McChesney and Endo, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the at least one heater and the at least one resistor are at least partially overlapped in a plan view of the annular region (as disc in claim 19, when Endo Fig. 3 is implemented in Oka Fig. 19’s annular region w. zones, the 200 heater and resistor 201 are over each other when view from the top, Endo Fig. 3, when in the annular region of Oka).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718