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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“a liner, a lid, a susceptor, or a chuck” of claim 7
“a liner or a lid” of claim 11
“a susceptor” of claim 14
“chuck” of claim 17
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0027] and in [0028], “yttrium oxide (YO)” should read as -- yttrium oxide (Y2O3) [[(YO)]] --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in line 3, “a used component” should read as – the [[a]] used component --.
Claim 7: the comma after “chuck” should be deleted.
Claims 8-10: in each claim, “yttrium oxide (YO)” should read as -- yttrium oxide (Y2O3) [[(YO)]] --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6-9, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West et al. 20080092806.
Regarding independent claim 1, West teaches a method for cleaning a used component ([0002] describes processing chamber components which are exposed to a process environment in the processing of substrates and the components are periodically cleaned between process cycles; [0022] describes substrate processing components may be removed from a substrate processing apparatus 302 for cleaning or be cleaned directly in the apparatus 302 and a variety of cleaning processes may be used separately or in combination to remove process residues 361 formed during processing of a substrate) from a substrate processing chamber ([0001]-[0002] describe cleaning of residues from surfaces of substrate processing chamber components, i.e., components used in a substrate processing chamber), the method comprising:
obtaining a used component having a ceramic base ([0003]-[0005] each describe a used component may be ceramic components and/or include ceramic material; per [0046] and with reference to Figs. 4A and 5, a used component includes component 500 which is used at least in a chemical mechanical polishing CMP apparatus; components such as the internal surfaces of chamber walls 312, exposed surfaces of electrostatic chucks 370, deposition rings or other rings about the substrate 304, and gas distribution plates 600 or nozzles, not shown in figures, per [0023]; [0048] describes component 500 is formed of ceramic) and process residue that is generated as a byproduct in the substrate processing chamber (per [0022] process residue can include, for example, process residues 361 that are formed during processing of a substrate 304--such as etch, CVD, or PVD process residues 361; adhesive or coating residues 361 that remain on the substrate after a stripping or removal process, or other types of residues 361; [0042] and [0046] describe process residues 361 and residual adhesives 418 and epoxy coat 440, layer 450 which may be from CVD or PVD process) and that is in direct contact with the ceramic base ([0005] describes carbon residues on ceramic chamber components; [0006] describes in fabrication or recycling, when the surface layer of the chuck or heater is removed, adhesive residues that remain on the underlying base need to be stripped off; as seen in Fig. 4A, 418,440,450 are in direct contact with ceramic base 500 via 450); and
at least partially removing the process residue by scanning a laser beam across the process residue ([0042] describes laser beam 410 is scanned across component surface 415 of component 500 to strip and burn-off or ablate residual adhesives 418).
Regarding claim 2, West further teaches scanning includes controlling at least one of motion ([0044] describes a well-controlled dynamic focusing beam is desirable to focus and scan the entire surface contour having the residues 361, where scanning implies motion of the laser beam), energy density ([0042] describes having adequate energy density), or power density ([0044] describes laser power density is regulated) of the laser beam across the process residue (as seen in Fig. 4A, laser beam 410 extends to 418 and as described in [0042] laser beam 410 is scanned across a component surface 415 to strip and burn-off or ablate residual adhesives 418 as shown in FIG. 4A).
Regarding claim 3, West further teaches the scanning is performed in one or more passes ([0044] describes scanning the entire contour having residues such that scanning is performed in at least one pass).
Regarding claim 6, West further teaches the laser beam has a power of about 10 watts to 1000 watts ([0044] describes the laser beam has a power of about 100 to about 5000 watts, such that 100 to 1000 watts is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, West further teaches the used component includes a liner (chamber walls 312, i.e., liner, per [0003] and [0023] and [0035]), a lid (ceiling 318, i.e., lid, per [0035]), a susceptor, or a chuck, (per [0046] retaining ring 500 is used in a CMP apparatus, for planarization of a substrate 304 mounted on a substrate carrier which faces a polishing head with a polishing pad, such that 500 is a chuck which is defined in Merriam-Webster online dictionary as an attachment for holding a workpiece or tool in a machine).
Regarding claim 8, West further teaches the ceramic base includes at least one of yttrium oxide (YO), silicon carbide (SiC), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), or aluminum nitride (Al N) ([0027] describes a substrate processing component may be a ceramic material such as silicon carbide, aluminum oxide or aluminum nitride).
Regarding claim 9, West further teaches the process residue includes at least one of a carbon layer ([0005] describes carbon residues, i.e., carbon layer, on ceramic chamber components in CVD chamber), polymer layer ([0005] describes polymer residue, i.e., polymer layer, on components used in CVD or PVD), fluorinated material ([0004] describes aluminum fluoride, i.e., fluorinated material, as a process residue), silicon nitride (SiN), metallic ([0054] describes residues which are aluminum or copper deposits and [0055] describes residues which are tantalum or titanium); or oxidized metallic layer.
Regarding claim 16, West further teaches the ceramic base includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or aluminum nitride (AIN) (per [0027] a substrate processing component may be a ceramic material such as aluminum oxide or aluminum nitride and [0051] describes components may be ceramic such as aluminum oxide, quartz, silicon nitride and titanium oxide) and the process residue includes titanium ([0055] describes process residues may be titanium and titanium nitride).
Regarding claim 17, West further teaches the used component is a chuck (per [0046] retaining ring 500 is used in a CMP apparatus, for planarization of a substrate 304 mounted on a substrate carrier which faces a polishing head with a polishing pad, such that 500 is a chuck which is defined in Merriam-Webster online dictionary as an attachment for holding a workpiece or tool in a machine) of the substrate processing chamber.
Regarding claim 20, West further teaches the laser beam has a wavelength of 300 nm - 1100 nm ([0043] describes suitable lasers 400 comprise Nd--YAG lasers (neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet) which generate wavelengths of typically 1064 nm which is within the claimed range, argon lasers which have wavelengths of 488 nm or 514 nm which is within the claimed range, high power diode lasers which provide 810 to 980 nm which is in the claimed range).
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.
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) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. 20080092806.
Regarding claim 4, West further teaches the laser beam has an energy density selected to ablate the process residue ([0042] describes a laser 400 provides a laser beam 410 in the form of a pulsed or continuous wave beam, with proper wavelength and adequate energy density that is scanned across a component surface 415 to strip and burn-off or ablate residual adhesives 418; and West claims this in claim 17) but West does not explicitly teach the laser beam has energy density selected to not ablate the ceramic base.
However, West teaches a laser power density is regulated to defragment and vaporize the residues 361, such as the adhesive or polymeric residues without damaging to the underlying structure of the component and remove both the adhesive residues and the epoxy layer in [0044] and teaches it is desirable to clean-off adhesive residues without damaging or eroding the component in [0008]. “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 West having the laser beam have an energy density selected to ablate the residue but not ablate the ceramic base since West already teaches to have a laser power density to ablate the residue and not the ceramic base and it is desirable to clean-off adhesive residues without damaging or eroding the component such that it would be obvious to try to control energy density to ablate the residue and not the ceramic base.
Regarding claim 19, West 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.
As described in [0042] laser beam 410 is scanned across component surface 415 and as shown in Fig. 4A, residues 418 and layers 440 and 450 are in different locations over ceramic base 500 of the used component, and laser beam 410 is directed to a first residue 418 with the used component at a first position relative to laser beam 410. In order to remove a second residue 418 or layer(s) at a different location on the used component by laser beam 410 requires either repositioning laser beam 410 and laser 400 relative to the used component or repositioning the used component to a second position relative to laser beam 440.
“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 West 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 remove residues and layers from the ceramic base as desired as obvious to try from a finite number of options of repositioning the laser beam relative to the used component or repositioning the used component relative to the laser beam when removing residues and/or other layers from the used component with scanning of the laser beam.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. 20080092806 in view of Boyle et al. 20020088780 and Engelsberg et al. 5643472.
Regarding claim 5, West teaches all that is claimed above and West does teach the laser beam may have a power density of 9.6 x 106 W/cm2 – 8.6 x 107 W/cm2 for a laser having a power level in the range of about 100 to about 5000 Watts in [0044], but West does not explicitly teach 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 optimisation 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).
Engelsberg teaches that proper application of the method requires consideration of the energy and power fluxes that may be applied to a substrate treatment surface and the tolerance of the physical properties intended to be left on the surface of a substrate (Col 7 Lines 25 – 40; 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 for complex materials requiring multiple photons 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 variation of power level and corresponding to the material upon which the laser beam is applied for desired machining, i.e., cleaning process residue off of the component.
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 modify the invention of West such that the laser beam has 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 machining of a material with the laser beam which in this case is removal of process residue from a surface of a 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 power level and the material of the process residue and of the component to achieve the desired machining, i.e., removal, of process residue from the component.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. 20080092806 in view of Peng et al. 20190291214.
Regarding claim 10, West teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the process residue includes a fluorinated material ([0004] describes aluminum fluoride, i.e., fluorinated material, as a process residue) but is silent as discussed so far regarding the ceramic base includes yttrium oxide (YO).
Peng teaches a method of laser polishing a workpiece surface includes scanning at least a portion of the workpiece surface with a pulsed laser beam per [0009]. The workpiece surface comprises a ceramic material and is a processing component such as a substrate support per [0009]. Suitable ceramics for use as a processing component or a protective coating for a processing component include surfaces of the processing component formed of quartz, aluminum oxide (Al2O3), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium oxide (TiO), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), tantalum nitride (TaN), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), or yttrium-stabilized zirconia per [0026].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
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 West to have the ceramic base include yttrium oxide (Y2O3) as obvious to choose from a finite list of suitable materials for including in a ceramic base of a component used with a laser polishing process such as CMP as taught by Peng and have the ceramic base function as expected as the base of the component.
Regarding claim 11, West in view of Peng teaches all that is claimed above and West further teaches the used component is at least one of a liner (the used component made of a ceramic base includes chamber walls 312, i.e., liner, per [0003], [0004] and [0027] and [0035]) or a lid (the used component made of a ceramic base includes ceiling 318, i.e., lid, per [0035]) of the substrate processing chamber.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. 20080092806 in view of Peng et al. 20190291214 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sun et al. 20130273327.
Regarding claim 12, West in view of Peng teaches all that is claimed above and West further teaches the scanning fully removes the process residue (per [0042] laser beam 410 in the form of a pulsed or continuous wave beam, with proper wavelength and adequate energy density that is scanned across a component surface 415 to strip and burn-off or ablate residual adhesives 418; [0044] describes laser power density is regulated to (i) defragment and vaporize the residues 361, such as the adhesive or polymeric residues without damaging to the underlying structure of the component, (ii) remove both the adhesive residues and the epoxy layer) but is silent regarding leaving an exposed surface of the ceramic base with a surface roughness less than 200 µin.
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]. The ceramic coating has a post polished roughness of 6-12 µin. By minimizing the surface roughness of the ceramic coated article, inadvertent sputtering may be reduced or eliminated during etch processes per [0047].
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 West in view of Peng to have the used component be a liner or a lid which is 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 and by minimizing surface roughness of the ceramic coated article, inadvertent sputtering may be reduced or eliminated during etch processes.
West in view of Peng teaches the scanning fully removes the process residue and as modified in view of Sun ‘327, an exposed surface of the ceramic coated article forming the ceramic base has surface roughness of 6-12 µin which is less than 200 µin as claimed.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. 20080092806 in view of Sun 20020189636.
Regarding claim 13, West further teaches the ceramic base includes silicon carbide (SiC) ([0003] describes silicon carbide components; [0027] describes component can be a ceramic material such as silicon carbide) but West does not explicitly teach the process residue includes silicon nitride (SiN).
Sun ‘636 teaches during processing, reactive gases released inside the process chamber form layers such as silicon oxides or nitrides on the surface of a substrate being processed and that undesirable deposition occurs elsewhere in the process apparatus such as in the area between the gas mixing box and gas distribution manifold and undesired residues also may be deposited in or around the exhaust channel, the liners and walls of the process chamber during such processes per [0004]. A laser beam(s) ablates residues from the process chamber per [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the invention of West would have the process residue includes silicon nitride, as Sun ‘636 teaches that it was known that during some processes, undesirable deposition of silicon nitride may deposit on surfaces of the process chamber.
Regarding claim 14, West in view of Sun ‘636 teaches all that is claimed above and West further teaches the used component is a susceptor ([0027] teaches substrate support 310, i.e., a susceptor, can be a ceramic material including silicon carbide) of the substrate processing chamber.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. 20080092806 in view of Sun 20020189636 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sun et al. 20180251406.
Regarding claim 15, West in view of Sun ‘636 teaches all that is claimed above and West further teaches the scanning fully removes the process residue (per [0042] laser beam 410 in the form of a pulsed or continuous wave beam, with proper wavelength and adequate energy density that is scanned across a component surface 415 to strip and burn-off or ablate residual adhesives 418; [0044] describes laser power density is regulated to (i) defragment and vaporize the residues 361, such as the adhesive or polymeric residues without damaging to the underlying structure of the component, (ii) remove both the adhesive residues and the epoxy layer) but is silent regarding leaving an exposed surface 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 West in view of Sun ‘636 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]).
West in view of Sun ‘636 teaches the 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 West et al. 20080092806 in view of Matsuda et al. 20050152089.
Regarding claim 18, West further teaches the scanning fully removes the process residue (per [0042] laser beam 410 in the form of a pulsed or continuous wave beam, with proper wavelength and adequate energy density that is scanned across a component surface 415 to strip and burn-off or ablate residual adhesives 418; [0044] describes laser power density is regulated to (i) defragment and vaporize the residues 361, such as the adhesive or polymeric residues without damaging to the underlying structure of the component 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 which 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 West 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.
West 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.
Conclusion
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./Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights