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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 8/1/2024 is being considered by the examiner
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/244,197 (reference application) in view of Cimino et al. [U.S. Pub. 2021/0022212]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as demonstrated below.
Instant Application
Application 18/244,197 (not in order)
1. A method comprising:
identifying property data associated with a substrate support system;
identifying target performance data associated with the substrate support system;
1. A method comprising:
identifying property data associated with a substrate support system;
identifying target performance data associated with the substrate support system; and
determining, based on the property data and the target performance data, zone configuration data associated with the substrate support system; and causing the substrate support system to be configured based on the zone configuration data.
causing, based on the property data and the target performance data, heat transfer management of the substrate support system.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the target performance data comprises one or more of a target heat map, a target etch map, or a target deposition map associated with an upper surface of the substrate support system.
2.
3.
3.
6.
4.
Cimino et al. [fig. 4]
5.
5.
6.
4.
7.
5.
8.
7.
9.
8.
10.
10.
11.
Cimino et al. [pars. 0042-043]
12.
Cimino et al. [pars. 0042-043]
13.
Cimino et al. [pars. 0042-043]
14.
Cimino et al. [pars. 0042-043]
15.
1.
16.
6.
17.
5.
18.
1.
19.
6.
20.
5.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining, based on the property data and the target performance data, zone configuration data associated with the substrate support system.
The limitation of determining zone configuration data associated with the substrate support system, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "by a processor" or "processing device" in claims 15 and 18, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "by a processor" language, "determining" in the context of the claims encompasses the user manually determining which zone falls outside a temperature range. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the identifying, determining, and configuring step. The processor in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of configuring the substrate support system based on a determined zone configuration data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of identifying property data and target performance data are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the determining and configuring steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 merely elaborate on how the determination is made or how the substrate support system is configured, thus covers performance of the limitations in the mind and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cimino et al. [U.S. Pub. 2021/0022212] ("Cimino").
With regard to claim 1, Cimino teaches a method comprising:
identifying property data associated with a substrate support system [fig. 1: Processing Chamber (100) and Substrate Support Assembly (126)] ("At block 1330, the real-time temperature feedback data is provided as an input to a closed-loop process control algorithm. Examples of process control algorithms have been discussed with reference to FIGS. 10-12 [par. 0085]");
identifying target performance data associated with the substrate support system ("At block 1340, targeted value of heater temperature for each heating zone is provided as another input to the closed-loop process control algorithm. The targeted value of heater temperature is calculated by a model, such as a wafer-temperature-to-heater temperature model. The wafer temperature is a function of process parameters, such as showerhead temperature, chamber pressure, distance of the heater from the showerhead etc., as shown in FIGS. 6, 7, and 10 [par. 0086]");
determining, based on the property data and the target performance data, zone configuration data associated with the substrate support system ("The closed-loop heater temperature control algorithm 1114 outputs targeted heater power 1116 based on the targeted heater temperature 110 and the heater temperature feedback 1108, which is communicated to heater electronics 1118 to achieve independent control of a heating zone [par. 0076]" and "At block 1360, chamber hardware is controlled to match the targeted value of heater temperature that is correlated with optimum values of process parameters [par. 0088]"); and
causing the substrate support system to be configured based on the zone configuration data ("At block 1360, chamber hardware is controlled to match the targeted value of heater temperature that is correlated with optimum values of process parameters [par. 0088]").
With regard to claim 2, Cimino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the property data comprises one or more of:
sensor data received from one or more sensors associated with the substrate support system ("The substrate support 132 and/or heater assembly 170 may include a plurality of temperature sensors for providing temperature feedback information [par. 0046]"); or
simulated data associated with the substrate support system.
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 4, Cimino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the zone configuration data is associated with a plurality of zones of the substrate support system ("The closed-loop heater temperature control algorithm 1114 outputs targeted heater power 1116 based on the targeted heater temperature 110 and the heater temperature feedback 1108, which is communicated to heater electronics 1118 to achieve independent control of a heating zone [par. 0076]"), the plurality of zones comprising one or more of an annulus-shaped zone, a disc-shaped zone, or a segment-shaped zone (see [fig. 4] where various segment-shaped zones can be tuned).
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 5, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the substrate support system to be configured based on the zone configuration data comprises causing the substrate support system to be controlled based on the zone configuration data ("The closed-loop heater temperature control algorithm 1114 outputs targeted heater power 1116 based on the targeted heater temperature 110 and the heater temperature feedback 1108, which is communicated to heater electronics 1118 to achieve independent control of a heating zone [par. 0076]").
With regard to claim 6, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the property data comprises one or more of:
measurement data of one or more components of the substrate support system ("Each temperature sensor may be located proximate to one of the spatially tunable heaters and may be used to determine an operability of the nearby spatially tunable heater [par. 0046]"); or
processing chamber data of a processing chamber, the substrate support system being disposed in the processing chamber, the processing chamber data comprising one or more of flow rate data associated with process gas flowing into the processing chamber, venting port location data associated with a venting port of the processing chamber, or pressure data associated with pressure of the processing chamber.
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 7, Cimino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target performance data comprises one or more of a target heat map ("The targeted heater temperature 1110 comprises a separate target temperature for each of the zones of the substrate support. This allows the closed-loop heater temperature controller 1114 to achieve the desired temperature pattern on the substrate 1102 [par. 0076]"), a target etch map, or a target deposition map associated with an upper surface of the substrate support system.
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 8, Cimino teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
providing the property data and the target performance data as input to a trained machine learning model ("The closed-loop heater temperature control algorithm 1114 outputs targeted heater power 1116 based on the targeted heater temperature 110 and the heater temperature feedback 1108, which is communicated to heater electronics 1118 to achieve independent control of a heating zone. The generation of the model can be done using machine learning algorithm, as described earlier in the disclosure [par. 0076]" and "input data for the trained machine learning model or models [par. 0072]");
obtaining, from the trained machine learning model, output associated with predictive data ("real-time RTD data may be used to train the models to improve accuracy of predicted results [par. 0070]" and "At block 1350, the algorithm outputs targeted value of heater power [par. 0087]); and
determining, based on the predictive data, the zone configuration data to cause the substrate support system to meet the target performance data ("At block 1360, chamber hardware is controlled to match the targeted value of heater temperature that is correlated with optimum values of process parameters [par. 0088]").
With regard to claim 9, Cimino teaches the method of claim 8, the trained machine learning model being trained based on data input comprising historical property data and historical target performance data of historical substrate support systems ("real-time RTD data may be used to train the models to improve accuracy of predicted results, but historical trustworthy data representing heater temperature may be used to build the model. Other inputs to the models comprise various process parameters [par. 0070]" and "a machine learning algorithm training such models based available data collected from the chamber for different chamber configurations (that is, for different showerhead temperature, chamber pressure, distance to showerhead, heat-exchanger power and heater power) [par. 0072]") and target output comprising historical zone configuration data associated with the historical substrate support systems ("The optimum values of prosed parameters may be the historical parameters corresponding to the best known method (BKM) [par. 0088]" and "the model is trained with historical chamber data using a machine-learning algorithm [claim 10]").
With regard to claim 10, Cimino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate support system comprises:
a ceramic puck ("The substrate support 132 may be a vacuum chuck, an electrostatic chuck (ESC) or other workpiece support surface [par. 0035];" it is implied that an electrostatic chuck is ceramic, e.g., Steger: "In general, electrostatic chucks comprise an electrically insulating ceramic support with one or more electrodes embedded inside the ceramic [par. 0013]") that one or more of:
houses a clamp electrode; houses heaters ("The substrate support assembly 126 may additionally include a heater assembly 170 that includes main resistive heating elements 154 [par. 0035]"); or forms gas channels; a cooling plate forming cooling channels and gas channels; and a bonding material coupling the ceramic puck to the cooling plate.
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 11, Cimino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate support system comprises
a hybrid heater system comprising a plurality of heaters ("The heater assembly 170 may include one or more main resistive heaters 154 and/or a plurality of spatially tunable heaters 140 embedded in a body 152 [par. 0042]"), a first subset of the plurality of heaters being continuous heaters ("The main resistive heaters 154 may be provided to elevate the temperature of the substrate support assembly 126 to a temperature for conducting chamber processes [par. 0043]") and a second subset of the plurality of heaters being pixelated heaters ("The spatially tunable heaters 140 are complimentary to the main resistive heaters 154 [par. 0043]").
With regard to claim 12, Cimino teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of heaters comprises a first heater in a first plane and a second heater in a second plane that is different from the first plane ("The substrate support assembly 126 may additionally include a heater assembly 170 that includes main resistive heating elements 154 (also referred to as main resistive heaters) and a plurality of additional resistive heating elements referred to herein as spatially tunable heating elements 140 (also referred to as independently controllable heaters) [par. 0035]" and [fig. 1] where main resistive heating elements 154 are on a different plane from spatially tunable heating elements 140).
With regard to claim 13, Cimino teaches the method of claim 11, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of heaters overlap spatially ("The substrate support assembly 126 may additionally include a heater assembly 170 that includes main resistive heating elements 154 (also referred to as main resistive heaters) and a plurality of additional resistive heating elements referred to herein as spatially tunable heating elements 140 (also referred to as independently controllable heaters) [par. 0035]" and [fig. 1] where main resistive heating elements 154 overlap tunable heating elements 140).
With regard to claim 14, Cimino teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the pixelated heaters provide tuneability and primary heating, and wherein the continuous heaters provide secondary heating ("The main resistive heaters 154 may be provided to elevate the temperature of the substrate support assembly 126 to a temperature for conducting chamber processes. The spatially tunable heaters 140 are complimentary to the main resistive heaters 154 and are configured to adjust the localized temperature of the substrate support 132 in a plurality of discrete locations within one or more of a plurality of laterally separated heating zones defined by the main resistive heaters 154 [par. 0043]").
With regard to claim 15, Cimino teaches claim 1 above. Claim 15 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 1; therefore, claim 15 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 15 differs from claim 1 where claim 15 recites the additional limitations (which Cimino teaches) of a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed cause a processing device to perform operations ("The instructions 1426 can also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 1404 and/or within the processing device 1402 during execution thereof by the computer system 1400, the main memory 1404 and the processing device 1402 also constituting machine-readable storage media [par. 0094]").
With regard to claim 17, Cimino teaches claim 5 above. Claim 17 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 5; therefore, claim 17 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 5.
With regard to claim 18, Cimino teaches claim 1 above. Claim 18 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 1; therefore, claim 18 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 18 differs from claim 1 where claim 18 recites the additional limitations (which Cimino teaches) of a memory; a processing device coupled to the memory ("The instructions 1426 can also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 1404 and/or within the processing device 1402 during execution thereof by the computer system 1400, the main memory 1404 and the processing device 1402 also constituting machine-readable storage media [par. 0094]").
With regard to claim 20, Cimino teaches claim 5 above. Claim 20 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 5; therefore, claim 20 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 5.
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.
Claims 3, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimino in view of Steger et al. [U.S. Pub. 2008/0083736] ("Steger").
With regard to claim 3, Cimino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the substrate support system to be configured based on the zone configuration data ("At block 1360, chamber hardware is controlled to match the targeted value of heater temperature that is correlated with optimum values of process parameters [par. 0088]") .
Cimino does not explicitly teach causing the substrate support system to be manufactured based on the zone configuration data.
In an analogous art (tuning support assembly), Steger teaches causing a substrate support system to be manufactured based on zone configuration data ("Engineering the thermal conductivity of the ESC support assembly is carried out by modifying one or more layers of the chuck support assembly, e.g., the cold (base) plate and/or the heater plate. For example, by removing thermally conductive material from the heater plate surface or the cold plate surface, the vertical conductivity of the structure is decreased [par. 0019]" and [fig. 3])
Steger further teaches, "Engineering the thermal conductivity of the ESC support assembly is carried out by modifying one or more layers of the chuck support assembly … By selective removal of material, heat from the electrostatic chuck will have a more thermally resistive path in those regions where the thermal conductivity is low, resulting in more uniform temperature at the chuck surface if removal of the material is done at appropriate locations [par. 0019]."
Because Cimino teaches the need to achieve uniformity of temperature control across the surface of a substrate via a substrate support system [pars. 0002-0004] and Steger teaches tuning the thermal conductivity of a substrate support system by modifying portions of the substrate support system [pars. 0002-0005], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included Steger's teachings of causing a substrate support system to be manufactured, with the teachings of Cimino, for the benefit of achieving greater temperature uniformity.
With regard to claim 16, Cimino teaches claim 3 above. Claim 16 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 3; therefore, claim 16 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 5.
With regard to claim 19, Cimino teaches claim 3 above. Claim 19 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 3; therefore, claim 19 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 5.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu et al. [U.S. Pub. 2022/0076931] teaches a plasma processing apparatus includes a process chamber, a substrate support chuck configured to support a substrate in the process chamber, the substrate support chuck including an upper cooling channel and a lower cooling channel that are symmetrically separated from each other, and a support chuck temperature controller configured to supply a first coolant to the upper cooling channel and to supply a second coolant to the lower cooling channel.
Parkhe et al. [U.S. Pub. 2015/0129165] teaches a pixelated substrate support assembly which enables both lateral and azimuthal tuning of the heat transfer between an electrostatic chuck and a cooling base comprising the substrate support assembly, which in turn, allows both lateral and azimuthal tuning of a substrate processed on the substrate support assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119