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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/17/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
An amendment to the specification was received on 07/17/2026 and is acceptable.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the used component of the substrate processing chamber” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the used component is a part of the processing chamber or not. The limitation previously recites “a used component from a substrate processing chamber” but subsequently refers to the component being of the processing chamber. Thus its unclear if the used component is something from within the processing chamber or if the component is a part of the processing chamber.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoggins 20210001429 in view of Lau 20090139540.
Regarding independent claim 1, Scoggins discloses a method for cleaning ([0018], [0020]) a used component ([0022] describes a shaped part used, i.e., a used component, at an interior of a semiconductor or microelectronic device processing system, such as within a vacuum chamber of an ion implantation system, a plasma treatment system, or a deposition chamber, such as for chemical vapor deposition or used component can be a semiconductor processing tool) from a substrate processing chamber ([0022] and [0003]-[0004] describe substrate processing chambers), the method comprising:
obtaining the used component of the substrate processing chamber (in order to clean the surface, the used component with the surface must be obtained), the used component having a ceramic base ([0030] describes used component is ceramic) and process residue that is in direct contact with the ceramic base ([0026] describes particles can be from any source, and may be made of any material such as carbon, ceramic, e.g., alumina, metal, metal oxides, etc. and the particles on the surface are particles produced during formation of the surface during machining, to form the surface, although the method can be effective to remove particles derived from any source or placed on the surface in any manner; [0028] describes the chemical make-up, i.e., composition, or the source of particles that may be removed from the surface by application of laser energy as described is not limited and that particles may be made of carbonaceous or ceramic material, metal, a metal alloy, solid organic materials, plastics, etc.; and [0029]-[0030] describe useful materials for the used component such as ceramics which have a very low content of volatile materials that might be capable of outgassing when exposed to a vacuum, and may have pores, texture, roughness, or another type of topography at a surface that may attract or may retain particles that contact the surface, such that the particles are process residue in direct contact with the ceramic surface); and
at least partially removing the process residue by scanning a laser beam across the process residue ([0042] describes laser energy can be scanned over an entire surface from which particles are being removed with computer control, to provide complete and uniform application of a desired total amount of laser energy over the entire area of the surface and can automatically sweep a laser beam evenly over the entire surface from which particles are being removed by applying an approximately equal number of passes or exposure time at all locations of the surface).
Scoggins does disclose process residue particles derived from any source or placed on the surface of the used component in any manner may be removed using the laser but Scoggins does not explicitly disclose the process residue is generated as a byproduct of processing a substrate in the substrate processing chamber.
Lau teaches in the manufacture of integrated circuits and displays, semiconductor, dielectric and conductor materials are formed on a substrate and etched to form patterns of active and passive features; these materials are typically formed by plasma processes which use an energized gas, such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), ion implantation processes, and etching processes, and that CVD processes and PVD processes deposit material on the substrate, in ion implantation processes, ions are implanted into the substrate to dope semiconducting material to form features having altered electronic properties, and in etching processes, a patterned etch-resistant mask of photoresist and/or a hard mask is formed on the substrate by photolithographic methods, and the exposed portions of the substrate are etched by an energized gas ([0002]). When an energized gas is used to etch or deposit material on a substrate in a chamber, process residues often form on the surfaces of components in the substrate processing chamber ([0003]). Accumulated process residues can flake off and contaminate the substrate while being processed, the process residues can corrode the component surfaces, as well as the process residues can react with the process gases or residues formed in another process ([0003]). Components of the process chamber can be ceramic and have ceramic surfaces ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the invention of Scoggins that the process residue is generated as a byproduct of processing a substrate in the substrate processing chamber as taught by Lau as a known condition encountered in processing substrates in substrate processing chambers. The object of Scoggins’ invention is to remove undesirable particle residue on the used component surface for a substrate processing chamber because particle contamination of surfaces, i.e., the presence of unwanted or potentially deleterious solid, small-scale particles at a surface can reduce product yields in semiconductor and microelectronic device processing (Scoggins [0002]-[0003]) and Lau teaches residues which are byproducts of processing a substrate are undesirable particle residues on the used component.
Regarding claim 2, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses scanning includes controlling at least one of motion ([0042] describes computer control, to provide complete and uniform application of a desired total amount of laser energy over an entire area of a surface and to automatically sweep a laser beam evenly over an entire surface from which particles are being removed by applying an approximately equal number of passes or exposure time at all locations of the surface which is controlling motion of the laser beam), energy density, or power density of the laser beam across the process residue.
Regarding claim 3, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the scanning is performed in one or more passes ([0041] describes scan rate and [0042] describes passes of the laser beam).
Regarding claim 4, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses scanning only removes the process residue leaving an exposed surface of the ceramic base (used part is ceramic such that removing particles of process residue on the surface leaves an exposed surface of the ceramic) and wherein the laser beam has an energy selected to ablate the process residue but not the ceramic base ([0020] describes laser energy is applied to the surface at locations of the particles in a manner that causes the particles to be separated from the surface and the laser energy is sufficient to cause the particles to be separated from the surface, but may also be applied at a dosage (total energy level) that is sufficiently low to avoid undesired damage to the surface by ablation of the material of the surface).
Although Scoggins does not explicitly disclose an energy density, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau the laser beam has an energy density selected to ablate the process residue but not the ceramic base as necessary in order to achieve the desired total energy level of laser energy which causes separation of the particles from the surface without ablating the ceramic surface.
Regarding claim 7, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the used component includes a liner ([0006] and [0053] describe a liner), a lid, a susceptor ([0006] and [0053] describe a support which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can be a susceptor in a semiconductor processing chamber), or a chuck ([0006] and [0053] describe a support which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can be a chuck in a semiconductor processing chamber), and Lau further teaches the used component can be a lid ([0019]).
Regarding claim 8, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the ceramic base includes at least one of yttrium oxide (Y2O3), silicon carbide (SiC) ([0030], [0033] describe ceramic can be silicon carbide), aluminum oxide (Al2O3) ([0034] describes ceramic can be alumina, i.e., aluminum oxide), or aluminum nitride (Al N). Lau further teaches a showerhead component of the substrate processing chamber can be made of aluminum nitride ([0020]). Scoggins discloses the used component can be a flow structure in [0006] and [0053] and a showerhead is a flow structure.
Regarding claim 9, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the process residue includes at least one of a carbon layer ([0026]), polymer layer ([0028] describes process residue can be plastics, and a plastic is a polymer), fluorinated material, silicon nitride (SiN) ([0026] describes process residue can be ceramic and silicon nitride is a ceramic), metallic ([0026]) or oxidized metallic layer ([0026]). Lau also teaches process residue can be silicon nitride in [0029].
Regarding claim 13, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the ceramic base includes silicon carbide (SiC) ([0030], [0033] describe ceramic can be silicon carbide) and the process residue includes silicon nitride (SiN) ([0026] describes process residue can be ceramic and silicon nitride is a ceramic). Lau also teaches process residue can be silicon nitride in [0029].
Regarding claim 14, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the used component is a susceptor ([0006] and [0053] describe a support which one of ordinary skill in the art understands can be a susceptor in a semiconductor processing chamber) of the substrate processing chamber.
Regarding claim 16, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the ceramic base includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) ([0034]). Lau further teaches the ceramic base includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or aluminum nitride (AIN) ([0020] describes a showerhead component of the substrate processing chamber can be made of aluminum oxide or aluminum nitride) and the process residue includes titanium ([0039] describes process residue may comprise titanium and titanium nitride). Scoggins discloses the used component can be a flow structure in [0006] and [0053] and a showerhead is a flow structure.
Regarding claim 17, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the used component is a chuck ([0006] and [0053] describe a support which one of ordinary skill in the art understands to be a chuck in a semiconductor processing chamber) of the substrate processing chamber.
Regarding claim 19, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far regarding repositioning the used component from a first position to a second position relative to the laser beam and repeating the scanning in the second position.
Scoggins further teaches in [0011] the method includes applying laser energy to the surface at locations that include the particles, so that the amount of laser energy is sufficient to cause the particles to separate from the surface. This would involve either repositioning the laser relative to the surface of the used component or repositioning the surface of the used component relative to the laser in order to remove particle residue at each location.
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person having ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely not the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR at 1397.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau repositioning the used component from a first position to a second position relative to the laser beam and repeating the scanning in the second position in order to scan the laser and remove process residue which is located at different locations on the surface of the used component.
Regarding claim 20, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the laser beam has a wavelength of 300 nm - 1100 nm ([0043] describes laser wavelengths can be in a range of 100 nm - 1200 nm which includes claimed range of 300 nm - 1100 nm).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoggins 20210001429 in view of Lau 20090139540 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyle et al. 20020088780 and Engelsberg et al. 5643472.
Regarding claim 5, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above but is silent regarding the laser beam has a power density of about 1 x 104 W/cm2 - 8 x 106 W/cm2 .
Boyle teaches control of laser machining in [0002] and teaches the parameters that lead to the optimization of energy density and peak power density depend on the laser source pulse energy, the variation in the output laser average power and pulse energy with pulse repetition rate, pulse width, beam diameter and the material response to increasing energy and power density in [0106].
In addition, Engelsberg teaches a method and apparatus for removing undesired material from a treatment surface of a substrate without altering the physical properties of the substrate which includes as shown in Fig. 1 apparatus 10 for treating a substrate 12 from which undesired material is to be removed includes a radiation system 400, a gas system 500, and a relative motion system 600 and radiation system 400 includes a source 410 of radiation 11, which consists of energetic photons, such as a laser and suitable delivery optics 450 that conduct radiation 11 to the treatment surface of substrate 12 (Col 5 lines 12-22).
Proper application of the method requires consideration of the energy and power fluxes that may be applied to a substrate treatment surface and the physical properties intended to be left on the surface of a substrate (Col 8 Lines 57 – 65) and power flux is power density since power flux is energy per unit time per unit area (Col 8 lines 27-28). The power density applied to a substrate treatment surface corresponds to a thickness of undesired material removed requiring multiple photon bonds to break (Col 8 Lines 43 – 50). Finding the appropriate maximum power and energy densities usable on a given material is subject to experimentation (Col 8 Line 65 – Col 9 Line 2).
Therefore, power density is a result effective variable dependent upon parameters such as the laser source pulse energy, the variation in the output laser average power and pulse energy with pulse repetition rate, pulse width, beam diameter and the material response to increasing energy and power density without an alteration of physical properties of the substrate material from which the material is being removed.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
Yet further, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the power density in the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau and arrive at the laser beam having a power density of about 1 x 104 W/cm2 - 8 x 106 W/cm2 because varying the power density was recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular result as taught by Boyle and Engelsberg (desired removal of a material from a surface of a substrate with the laser beam which in this case is removal of process residue from a surface of a used component) and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of power density of the laser beam depending on the laser source pulse energy, the variation in the output laser average power and pulse energy with pulse repetition rate, pulse width, beam diameter and the material response to increasing energy and power density, and corresponding to the material of the process residue and of the used component to achieve the desired removal of process residue from the used component without an alteration of the physical properties of the used component material.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoggins 20210001429 in view of Lau 20090139540 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of West et al. 20080092806.
Regarding claim 6, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the laser beam is from a neodymium-doped YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) laser in [0043], but Scoggins is silent regarding the laser beam has a power of about 10 watts to 1000 watts.
West teaches a Nd--YAG laser (neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet) in [0043] which is used for cleaning residues from a substrate per [0042] and the laser can have a power level in the range of 100 to about 5000 Watts which includes the claimed range of about 10 watts to 1000 watts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau the laser beam has a power of about 10 watts to 1000 watts as taught by West as being well within the capabilities of the laser disclosed by Scoggins.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoggins 20210001429 in view of Lau 20090139540 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. 20130273327 and West et al. 20080092806.
Regarding claim 10, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above but is silent regarding the ceramic base includes yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and the process residue includes a fluorinated material.
Sun ‘327 teaches coating a ceramic article including aluminum oxide Al2O3 with a ceramic coating including yttrium oxide Y2O3 so that the ceramic coating is highly resistant to plasma etching and the ceramic article has superior mechanical properties such as a high flexural strength and a high thermal shock resistance per [0015]. The ceramic article may be a ceramic lid, ceramic nozzle, ceramic ring, wall, base, gas distribution plate, shower head, substrate holding frame, etc. of a plasma etcher, a plasma cleaner, a plasma propulsion system, and so forth per [0016]. The ceramic article causes reduced particle contamination when used in a process chamber for plasma rich processes, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) chambers, plasma enhanced physical vapor deposition (PEPVD) chambers and plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) chambers, as well as non-plasma etchers, non-plasma cleaners, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) furnaces, physical vapor deposition (PVD) furnaces, and so forth per [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau to have the used component be a ceramic article including Al2O3 aluminum oxide with a ceramic coating including Y2O3 yttrium oxide as taught by Sun ‘327 so that the ceramic coating is highly resistant to plasma etching and the ceramic article has superior mechanical properties such as a high flexural strength and a high thermal shock resistance and the ceramic article causes reduced particle contamination when used in a variety of plasma and non-plasma processes.
Scoggins in view of Lau and further in view of Sun ‘327 is silent regarding the process residue includes a fluorinated material.
West teaches aluminum fluoride is a process residue that can be on surfaces of substrate processing components in processing chambers such as for CVD or PVD process, etched materials, or even polymeric photoresist removed in etching processes ([002], [004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the process residue in the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau and further in view of Sun ‘327 include a fluorinated material since aluminum fluoride is a process residue which is a fluorinated material taught by West known to deposit on surfaces of components used in substrate processing chambers.
Regarding claim 11, Scoggins in view of Lau and further in view of Sun ‘327 and West teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the used component is at least one of a liner ([0006] and [0053] describe a liner) or Lau further teaches a lid ([0019]) of the substrate processing chamber. Sun ‘327 also teaches the used component may be a liner or a lid per [0016]. West also teaches a liner (used component made of a ceramic base includes chamber walls 312, i.e., liner, per [0003], [0004] and [0027] and [0035]), and a lid (used component made of a ceramic base includes ceiling 318, i.e., lid, per [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Scoggins in view of Lau and further in view of Sun ‘327 and West teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses scanning fully removes the process residue (per [0020] laser energy is applied to the surface at locations of the particles in a manner that causes the particles to be separated from the surface, i.e., scanning with the laser fully removes the process residue particles from the surface; [0062] describes FIG. 3C shows a surface after the surface has been treated with laser energy to remove particles and the surface does not have any identifiable particles, i.e., scanning with the laser fully removes the process residue) and
Sun ‘327 further teaches an exposed surface of the ceramic base has a surface roughness less than 200 µin (as modified in view of Sun ‘327, the ceramic base includes a ceramic coating and Sun’327 teaches in [0026] the ceramic coating has a post polished roughness of 6-12 µin and by minimizing the surface roughness of the ceramic coated article, inadvertent sputtering may be reduced or eliminated during etch processes per [0047]). Fully removing the process residue leaves the exposed surface of the ceramic base which has the surface roughness of 6-12 µin which is less than 200 µin as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau and further in view of Sun ‘327 and West after scanning fully removes the process residue, leaving an exposed surface of the ceramic base with a surface roughness less than 200 µin as further taught by Sun ‘327 because by minimizing surface roughness of the ceramic coated article, inadvertent sputtering may be reduced or eliminated during etch processes.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoggins 20210001429 in view of Lau 20090139540 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sun et al. 20180251406.
Regarding claim 15, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses scanning fully removes the process residue (per [0020] laser energy is applied to the surface at locations of the particles in a manner that causes the particles to be separated from the surface, i.e., scanning with the laser fully removes the process residue particles from the surface; [0062] describes FIG. 3C shows a surface after the surface has been treated with laser energy to remove particles and the surface does not have any identifiable particles, i.e., scanning with the laser fully removes the process residue);
but is silent regarding leaving an exposed surface roughness of the ceramic base with a surface roughness of 30-200 µin.
Sun ‘406 teaches an article which is a chamber component may be made of silicon carbide per [0069]. A sintered ceramic protective layer is bonded to the article per [0071]. A surface roughness of the sintered ceramic protective layer may have an average surface roughness of about 80-120 µin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau to have the ceramic base include a sintered ceramic protective layer as taught by Sun ‘406 to provide desirable plasma resistance properties (Sun ‘406 [0003]-[0004]).
Scoggins in view of Lau teaches scanning fully removes the process residue and as modified in view of Sun ‘406, an exposed surface of the ceramic coated article forming the ceramic base has surface roughness of about 80-120 µin which is within the claimed range of 30-200 µin.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoggins 20210001429 in view of Lau 20090139540 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Matsuda et al. 20050152089.
Regarding claim 18, Scoggins in view of Lau teaches all that is claimed above and Scoggins further discloses the scanning fully removes the process residue (per [0020] laser energy is applied to the surface at locations of the particles in a manner that causes the particles to be separated from the surface, i.e., scanning with the laser fully removes the process residue particles from the surface; [0062] describes FIG. 3C shows a surface after the surface has been treated with laser energy to remove particles and the surface does not have any identifiable particles, i.e., scanning with the laser fully removes the process residue) but is silent regarding leaving an exposed surface of the ceramic base with a surface roughness of less than 5 µin.
Matsuda teaches an electrostatic chuck for holding a substrate during a manufacturing process per [0005]. The electrostatic chuck includes a dielectric ceramic layer made of a high purity alumina sintered body, i.e., a ceramic base, having an extremely high volume resistivity over a wide temperature range and since the purity of the dielectric ceramic layer can be improved, the electrostatic chuck cannot be a contamination source to the substrate per [0017]. The surface roughness of the dielectric ceramic layer is in a range from about 0.1 to about 0.5 µm which is equal to about 3.9 to about 19.7 µin since when flowing a backside gas between the back side of the substrate and the substrate contact surface of the dielectric ceramic layer, turbulence of the backside gas flow is prevented, making the substrate temperature uniform and this surface roughness allows reduction in processing cost per [0058]. A surface roughness of about 3.9 to about 5 µin is within claimed range of less than 5 µin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scoggins in view of Lau to have the used component be an electrostatic chuck including a dielectric ceramic layer, i.e., ceramic base, so that the electrostatic chuck cannot be a contamination source to a substrate being manufactured and the dielectric ceramic layer has a surface roughness of less than about 3.9 to about 5 µin as taught by Matsuda to reduce processing cost.
Scoggins in view of Lau teaches the scanning fully removes process residue and as modified in view of Matsuda, an exposed surface of the dielectric ceramic layer forming the ceramic base has surface roughness of about 3.9 to about 5 µin which is within the claimed range of less than 5 µin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The current 103 rejection of claim 1 relies on newly cited prior art Scoggins 20210001429 in view of Lau 20090139540.
Applicant does not argue the dependent claims.
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 ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/A.J.H./ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
