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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1, 10, 16 cite that an upper surface of the plurality of mesas define a substrate support surface, wherein a total surface area of the substrate support surface is about 18 to about 40 percent a total surface area of the upper surface. However, it is unclear how the total surface area of the substrate support surface is 18-40 percent of itself (i.e. 18-40 percent of the total surface area of the upper surface, which is also the substrate support surface). In other words, it is unclear and does not make sense how a total surface area of something can be less than itself, i.e. said total surface area when, logically, they should be the same. The dependent claims are also rejected by dependency to rejected claims 1, 10 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20040218339).
Regarding claim 1. Nakamura teaches in fig. 1a,b a substrate support (ES chuck 1 [33]), comprising: an electrostatic chuck (ESC) (as discussed) having a top surface (S1 top surface of the circular gas recess 8, which is the top surface of the ESC around the protrusions/mesas 11, commensurate to applicant’s top surface 202 around the mesa/protrusions 188) and a plurality of mesas (said protrusions 11) extending upward from the top surface (fig. 1a, b), wherein an upper surface of the plurality of mesas define a substrate support surface (fig. 1a [41 47] 11 and its combined top surfaces support wafer from deforming), wherein a total surface area of the substrate support surface is about 18 to about 40 percent a total surface area of the upper surface (as best understood and for examinability purposes, this instance of the upper surface may refer to top surface, commensurate to applicant’s pgpub albeit a narrower range [42], hence Nakamura teaches a total area S1 of the top surface vs S2 of the total area of tops of 11 as 4, 5 which means 4, 5:1 or S2 being 25 and 20% of S1 table 3 [46-51, [85-89]), and wherein the ESC includes a plurality of backside gas openings (gas inlets 4, 5 [33] which all extend and open in both in the front and back of 1, fig. 1a) extending through the ESC (fig. 1a); and one or more chucking electrodes (esc electrodes 18 [35] fig. 1a) disposed in the ESC (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 2. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mesas are substantially arranged in an orthogonal grid (fig. 1b, 11 are in a grid and have substantial orthogonal cross shaped in the central areas near the x-y axis and also the mesas themselves form a grid of orthogonal/vertically raised bosses/protrusions from the surface of 8).
Regarding claim 3. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mesas include a plurality of first mesas and a plurality of second mesas (eg protrusions 11 and 12 fig. 1ab), wherein the plurality of first mesas are substantially square shaped and the plurality of second mesas are not square shaped (all the protrusions 11, 12 are both substantially square shaped in the x-section and circular/not squared in the top view, fig. 1ab), and wherein substantially all mesas of the plurality of mesas comprise the plurality of first mesas (fig. 1b, most/substantially all of the mesas are 11).
Regarding claim 5. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 1, further comprising one or more heating elements (heater electrode 19 [35]) disposed in the ESC (fig. 1a) between the one or more chucking electrodes and a bottom surface of the ESC (19 between bottom of 1 and 18 fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 6. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 1, wherein the plurality of backside gas openings are disposed in the ESC along one or more annular rings and terminate at the top surface of the ESC (5 in 1 is also along the outer edge/ends of ring/annular protrusion 14 and 5 open out at the top of 1, fig. 1ab).
Regarding claim 8. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of lift pin openings disposed in the ESC (lift pin holes 17 [52] in 1, fig. 1ab).
Regarding claim 9. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 8, wherein a first lift pin of the plurality of lift pin openings extends through a first mesa of the plurality of mesas (fig. 1a the lift pin in 17 when lifting the wafer extends out from at least a mesa/protrusion block that extends to the back of the wafer within 8).
Regarding claim 10. Nakamura teaches a substrate support, comprising:an electrostatic chuck (ESC) having a top surface (the annular top surface of gas groove 9, i.e. S3 [46] fig. 1ab) and a plurality of mesas (protrusions 12, fig. 1ab [46]) extending upward from the top surface (fig. 1ab), wherein an upper surface of the plurality of mesas define a substrate support surface (i.e S4 [46]), wherein a total surface area of the substrate support surface is 18 percent to about 40 percent of a total surface area of the upper surface (as disc in claim 1, we assume this tot SA of the upper surf to be top surface, eg S3 so S4:S3 per table 3 [46-51] include 1:3, 5 i.e. 33, 20%), wherein the ESC includes a plurality of lift pin openings (see claim 8), and wherein the ESC includes a plurality of backside gas openings extending through the ESC (claim 1) and terminating on the top surface (fig. 1ab, all the holes 5 open up on S3 of 9 fig. 1ab); and one or more chucking electrodes disposed in the ESC (claim 1).
Regarding claim 11. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 10, further comprising one or more terminals (20 21 [35]) coupled to a bottom surface of the ESC (fig. 1a, 20 21 at bottom of 1).
Regarding claim 12. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 10, wherein the ESC includes an upper peripheral notch disposed about the top surface (the sides of annular rings 13 14 bounding 9 form annular notches/downward cuts from the tops of 13, 14 about/near or around 9, fig. 1ab, the said sides of 13 14 are at the upper side of 1 and its periphery).
Regarding claim 13. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 10, wherein the plurality of lift pin openings are disposed radially inward of the plurality of backside gas openings (fig. 1ab 17 are radially inward of 5).
Regarding claim 14. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 10, wherein the plurality of mesas comprise a plurality of first mesas (such as a subset of protrusions 12 such as half), a plurality of edge mesas (the other 1/2 subset of 12) proximate an outer edge of the ESC (fig. 1ab all the 12 are at the edge of 1), a plurality of lift pin mesas (annular protrusions 13 14) proximate the plurality of lift pin openings (13 14 are at the outer proximity of 17 fig. 1ab), and wherein the plurality of lift pin mesas are larger in size than the plurality of first mesas and the plurality of edge mesas (fig. 1ab 13 14 are larger than each of the plurality of 12).
Regarding claim 16. Nakamura teaches a process chamber ([66] vacuum chamber for processing a wafer), comprising: a chamber body defining an interior volume therein (by definition a chamber has a structure/body enclosing/defining the enclosed space/cavity; [66] a vacuum chamber has a vacuum/sealed body holding the vacuum inside); and a substrate support disposed in the interior volume, the substrate support comprising: an electrostatic chuck (ESC) having a top surface and a plurality of mesas extending upward from the top surface, wherein an upper surface of the plurality of mesas define a substrate support surface, wherein a total surface area of the substrate support surface is 18 percent to about 40 percent of a total surface area of the upper surface, and wherein the ESC includes a plurality of backside gas openings extending through the ESC; and one or more chucking electrodes disposed in the ESC (see claim 1 for all the previous).
Regarding claim 18. Nakamura teaches the process chamber of claim 16, further comprising a backside gas supply coupled to the plurality of backside gas openings (at least a supply of inert gas such as He or Ar is coupled to 4, 5 in order to supply said gases in a controllable manner [37 39]).
Regarding claim 20. Nakamura teaches the process chamber of claim 16, further comprising a lift mechanism having a plurality of lift pins configured to extend through the ESC (lift pins through ESC via 17 [52], the pins form a lifting mechanism that raise/lower the wafer on ESC).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20040218339).
Regarding claim 4. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 3, but does not teach wherein the plurality of first mesas are about 0.1 inches to about 0.25 inches wide by about 0.1 inches to about 0.25 inches long. However, Nakamura teaches in [46-51] the surface area of all the protrusions affects the thermal distribution and wafer support. Further, one skilled in the art of basic arithmetic would know the side dimensions, such as length/width or orthogonal diameters in a circular shape affect/affected by the surface area. Hence, the surface area, and by extension the width and length, are result effect parameters. It would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize the width and length of the mesas to control the thermal distribution and wafer support. For optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20040218339) in view of Prouty (US 20200373184).
Regarding claim 7. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 6, but does not teach further comprising a porous plug disposed in each of the plurality of backside gas openings. However, Prouty teaches in fig. 2 a porous plug 244 [31] disposed in each of the plurality of backside gas openings disposed in each of the backside/penetrating gas openings 280/270 [28 31]. It would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Nakamura to reduce undesired arcing/plasma [31] in the passages and prevent structural damage.
Regarding claim 17. Nakamura teaches the process chamber of claim 16, but does not teach further comprising an RF plasma power source coupled to a lid of the chamber body. However, Prouty teaches in fig. 1 an RF plasma power source (RF source 118 [15-17]) coupled to a lid of the chamber body (inductively coupled to/thru the lid/ceiling 120 of chamber 150 via inductive EM to generate ICP [15-17]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Nakamura to provide plasma processing of the wafer that allows reactive ions to etch/remove material to create desired semiconductor products [17].
Regarding claim 19. Nakamura teaches the process chamber of claim 16, but does not teach wherein the substrate support further comprises a base assembly coupled to the ESC and having one or more cooling channels disposed therein. However, Prouty teaches in fig. 2 the substrate support 116 further comprises a base assembly 104/cooing base [19] coupled to the ESC/ESC 102 [19] and having one or more cooling channels/212 disposed therein, Fig. 2 [23]. It would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Nakamura to maintain thermal control of the substrate pedestal and substrate [23], so that desired processing can be achieved using optimal temperatures.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20040218339) in view of Kamitani (US 20080037194).
Regarding claim 15. Nakamura teaches the substrate support of claim 14, but does not teach wherein the plurality of edge mesas are non-rectangular quadrilaterals. However, Kamitani teaches in fig. 1a all the mesas 8b are square/non rectangular quadrilaterals. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Nakamura to improve gas transfer and heat uniformly [49]. Further, per MPEP 2144.04 it has been held that changes in shape did not render claims patentable.
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