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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical feature of a system comprising a pedestal with at least three electrodes is not a special technical feature and that instead the novelty is measuring pedestal to showerhead gap and at least one of magnitude and direction of relative tilt between pedestal and showerhead by sensing impedances between showerhead and electrodes in pedestal. This is not found persuasive because the three electrodes are required to measure the pedestal to showerhead gap and the at least one of magnitude and direction of relative tilt between the pedestal and showerhead. Additionally, and this notwithstanding, the technical feature argued by the applicant (measuring pedestal to showerhead gap and at least one of magnitude and direction of relative tilt between pedestal and showerhead by sensing impedances between showerhead and electrodes in pedestal) is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of, for example, Gardner (US 2008/0246493) and Larsen (US 6,362,946). Thus, there is no special technical feature shared among the claimed invention, leaving the claims without a single general inventive concept and therefore, lack of unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 35-83 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the disc shaped electrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21-24, 26-29, and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, US 2008/0246493 in view of Larsen, US 6,362,946 and Kusuda et al., US 5,568,252 or Yamashita et al., US 2002/0086546 or Negishi et al., US 2006/0141795.
Regarding independent claim 1, Gardner shows the invention substantially as claimed including a system comprising: a pedestal 104/204 arranged below a showerhead 102/202 in a processing chamber 100/200; and a controller 230 configured to measure a pedestal-to-showerhead gap and at least one of a magnitude and a direction of a relative tilt between the pedestal and the showerhead by sensing impedances (capacitances) between the at least three electrodes and the showerhead, (see, for example, Figs. 1-2, their descriptions, and paragraphs 0003-00111, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the pedestal 104 including at least three electrodes, it should be noted that Gardner discloses that the electrodes can alternatively be positioned within the pedestal (see, for example, paragraph 0019). Additionally, and this notwithstanding, Larsen discloses a system comprising a pedestal 100/110/200 having at least three electrodes 20,22,24/120,122,124/230,232,234,236,238,240,260,262,264 within the pedestal to firmly clamp the substrate to the pedestal (see, for example, Figs. 1, 3A-C, and 7-10, and their descriptions, Fig. 9 shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
328
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Gardner as to comprise the claimed three electrodes because such means are known and used in the art to clamp the substrate to the pedestal during processing.
Regarding the apparatus sensing of impedances, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention clearly states that “the term impedance, which includes capacitance, may be generally used instead” (see, for example, paragraph 0110), and therefore, the sensing of capacitances in the apparatus of Gardner would meet the claimed limitation. This notwithstanding, Kusuda et al. discloses an impedance meter 24 that measures capacitance (see, for example, col. 6, lines 50-52). Also, Yamashita et al. discloses that the impedance detection circuit 11 measures variations in the capacitance (see, for example, paragraphs 0034, 0043 and 0045). Additionally, Negishi et al. discloses that an impedance meter 37 measures capacitance (see, for example, paragraph 0047). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the measuring of capacitances would also include measuring of impedances.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that Larsen discloses that the pedestal 100/110/200 further comprises a circumferential electrode 260, 262, 264 surrounding the at least three electrodes 20,22,24/120,122,124/230,232,234,236,238,240 (see, for example, Figs. 1, 3A-C, and 7-10, and their descriptions, Fig. 9 is shown above).
Regarding claim 3, it should be noted that Larsen further discloses that the pedestal comprises a dielectric plate 16/116/222,244 and wherein the at least three electrodes are arranged in the dielectric plate (see, for example, Figs. 1, 3A-C, 7-8C, and 10, and their descriptions, Figs. 1, 7 and 10 are shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
173
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
155
283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
119
216
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Concerning claims 4-6, Larsen further teaches that the dielectric material can be a laminated, monolithic plate made of a single crystalline material, a vitreous material, or a polymeric material (see, for example, col. 8, lines 1-43).
With respect to claim 10, it should be noted that the controller is configured to determine/measure the gap between the showerhead and the pedestal at various points on the showerhead corresponding with various isolated surface regions for determination of overall gap, tilt and shape of the gap (see, for example, paragraphs 0010, and 0013-0015). It should be noted that since a wafer or a substrate will rest upon the pedestal, the controller could determine whether the substrate is absent, present but not clamped to the pedestal, or present and clamped to the pedestal.
Concerning claim 11-12 and 34, it should be noted that the controller 230 is coupled to the switches 1-5 and to the RF energy source 106 and the capacitance measurement circuit 214, wherein various capacitor pairs exist between the showerhead and the pedestal, and the capacitance of each pair is dependent on the distance between the showerhead and the pedestal at that point.
With respect to claim 13, it should be noted that the pedestal and the showerhead in the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen are arranged along a vertical axis and wherein the at least three electrodes are arranged in the pedestal in one or more planes parallel to a horizontal plane that is perpendicular to the vertical axis.
Regarding claims 14, it should be noted that Larsen discloses that the at least three electrodes 230,232,234,236,238,240 are pie-shaped, the system further comprising an annular electrode 260,262,264 having a greater radius than the at least three electrodes (see, for example, Fig. 9 shown above).
Concerning claim 16, it should be noted that the pedestal and the showerhead in the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen are arranged along a vertical axis and wherein the at least three electrodes are arranged in the pedestal in one or more planes parallel to a horizontal plane that is perpendicular to the vertical axis.
With respect to claim 17, it should be noted that Gardner discloses an embodiment wherein a disc shaped electrode 210 has a smaller radius than the at least three electrodes 208,212,222, (see, for example, the embodiment of Fig. 3, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
430
317
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to the shape of the at least three electrodes, Larsen discloses that the at least three electrodes 230,232,234,236,238,240 can have a pie shape (see, for example, Fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the three electrodes as to have the pie shape because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for an electrode.
Regarding claim 18, it should be noted that the pedestal and the showerhead in the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen are arranged along a vertical axis and wherein the at least three electrodes are arranged in the pedestal in one or more planes parallel to a horizontal plane that is perpendicular to the vertical axis and wherein the disc shaped electrode is arranged in the pedestal in a separate plate parallel to the horizontal plane.
Concerning claims 21-22 and 24, it should be noted that Gardner discloses a plurality of switches 1-5 wherein the controller 230 is configured to connect to the at least three electrodes using the plurality of switches; and wherein the controller comprises a plurality of sensing circuits 214 connected directly to respective of the at least three electrodes 206,208,210,212 (embodiment of Fig. 2), or the at least three electrodes 206,208,210,212,222 (embodiment of Fig.3) to sense impedances (see, for example, Figs. 2-3 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0014). It should be noted that it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the controller and sensing circuits to the at least three electrodes and/or the at least three electrodes and the disc shaped electrode in pairs as claimed, depending upon, for example, the desired/required holding and/or plasma characteristics.
With respect to claim 23, it should be noted that in the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen the annular electrode would have a greater radius than the at least three electrodes; and the apparatus would comprise a plurality of switches, wherein the controller would connect to the at least three electrodes and the annular electrode in pairs using the plurality of switches, with each of the pairs including the annular electrode and a different one of the at least three electrodes.
Concerning claim 26, it should be noted that in the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen the pedestal would comprise a baseplate, a dielectric plate arranged on the base plate, wherein the at least three electrodes are arranged in the dielectric plate.
Regarding claims 27-28, Larsen discloses connecting the at least three electrodes to a first DC potential 208 having a first polarity, and connecting the plurality of circumferential electrodes to a second DC potential 202 having a second polarity. With respect to the second polarity being opposite to the first polarity, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The first DC potential and the second DC potential of the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen and Jennings et al. are capable of having opposite polarities if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to claim 29, it should be noted that in the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen, the at least three electrodes would be connected to a first DC potential having a first polarity, and the disc shaped electrode would be connected to a second DC potential having a second polarity. With respect to the second polarity being opposite to the first polarity, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The first DC potential and the second DC potential of the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen are capable of having opposite polarities if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Regarding claim 31, it should be noted that in the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen, the disc-shaped/annular electrode would be connected to a first potential, and the at least three electrodes would be connected to a time-varying potential with a phase shift of 360 degrees divided a total number of the at least three electrodes (see, for example, col. 9, lines 7-12).
With respect to claim 32, it should be noted that Larsen disclose that the at least three electrodes comprise six electrodes and that each is connected to a DC potential having a polarity. It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect a first pair of electrodes that are arranged diametrically opposite to each other to a potential having a first polarity, and connect a second pair of electrodes that are arranged diametrically opposite to each other to a second potential having a second polarity, as claimed, depending upon, the desired/required plasma characteristics. With respect to the second polarity being opposite to the first polarity, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The first DC potential and the second DC potential of the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen are capable of having opposite polarities if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Regarding claim 33, it should be noted that Larsen disclose that the at least three electrodes comprise six electrodes, each connected to a time-varying potential with a phase shift of 360 degrees divided a total number of the electrodes (see, for example, col. 9, lines 7-12). It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect a first pair of electrodes including a first electrode and a second electrode that are arranged diametrically opposite to each and that are respectively connected to first time-varying potentials having a first polarity and a second polarity; and connect a second pair of electrodes including a third electrode and a fourth electrode that are arranged diametrically opposite to each other and that are respectively connected to second time-varying potentials having the first polarity and the second polarity, as claimed, depending upon, the desired/required plasma characteristics. With respect to the second polarity being opposite to the first polarity, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The first DC potential and the second DC potential of the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen are capable of having opposite polarities if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, US 2008/0246493 in view of Larsen, US 6,362,946 and Kusuda et al., US 5,568,252 or Yamashita et al., US 2002/0086546 or Negishi et al., US 2006/0141795, as applied to claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21-24, 26-29, 31-34, and further in view of Kubo, US 6,992,755 or Musselman et al., US 2017/0287753 or Schaller et al., US 2020/0105573.
With respect to claim 7, Gadner, Larsen, Kusuda et al., Yamashita et al. and Negishi et al., are applied as above, and Gardner clearly discloses that the controller is coupled to various actuators (not shown) to generate relative movement between the pedestal 204 and the showerhead 202 to dynamically adjust the gap and/or parallelism without significant user interaction (see, for example, paragraph 0015). Gardner and Larsen do not expressly disclose that the actuators have at least three degrees of freedom. Kubo discloses a system comprising a pedestal and a plurality of actuators having at least three degrees of freedom (see, for example, col. 8, lines 30-32). Also, Musselman et al. discloses a system comprising a pedestal and a plurality of actuators having at least three degrees of freedom (see, for example, paragraph 0026). Additionally, Schaller et al. discloses a system comprising a pedestal and a plurality of actuators having at least three degrees of freedom (see, for example, paragraph 0028). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use actuators having at least three degrees of freedom because such means are known and used in the art as suitable means for effectively, efficiently and precisely moving and positioning an object.
Regarding claim 8, it should be noted that the plurality of actuators of the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen and Kusuda et al. or Yamashita et al. or Negishi et al. and Kubo or Musselman et al. or Schaller et al. are capable of and used for at least one of moving the pedestal and reorient the relative tilt between the pedestal and the showerhead by moving the pedestal, moving the showerhead, and/or influencing a relative positioning of the pedestal and the showerhead.
Concerning claim 9, it should be noted that Gardner clearly discloses that the controller is coupled directly to actuators that can generate relative movement between the pedestal and showerhead so that the controller can dynamically adjust the gap and/or parallelism (see, for example, paragraph 0015).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, US 2008/0246493 in view of Larsen, US 6,362,946 and Kusuda et al., US 5,568,252 or Yamashita et al., US 2002/0086546 or Negishi et al., US 2006/0141795, as applied to claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21-24, 26-29, 31-34, and further in view of French et al., US 2020/0043703.
Regarding claim 15, Gardner, Larsen, Kusuda et al., Yamashita et al. and Negishi et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the annular electrode includes a plurality of spoke-like portions as claimed. French et al. discloses a system comprising a pedestal having an annular electrode 1302 including a spoke-loke portion extending radially inwards which is arranged between a pair of electrodes 1304 and 1306; (see, for example, Figs. 2 and 13, and their descriptions, Fig. 13 is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
365
397
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen and Kusuda et al. or Yamashita et al. or Negishi et al., as to comprise the claimed annular electrode because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently provide spatial tuning of power by setting and adjusting parameters of the electrodes in the pedestal. It should be noted that the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen and Kusuda et al. or Yamashita et al. or Negishi et al. and French et al. would comprise an annular electrode including a plurality of spoke-like portions extending radially inwards and wherein each of the spoke- like portions is arranged between a different pair of electrodes from the at least three electrodes.
Claim(s) 19-20, 25, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, US 2008/0246493 in view of Larsen, US 6,362,946 and Kusuda et al., US 5,568,252 or Yamashita et al., US 2002/0086546 or Negishi et al., US 2006/0141795, as applied to claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21-24, 26-29, 31-34, and further in view of Jennings et al., US 2012/0164834.
With respect to claim 19, Gardner, Larsen, Kusuda et al., Yamashita et al. and Negishi et al. are applied as above, but do not expressly disclose the configuration of the at least three electrodes being pie-shaped and a plurality of arc-shaped electrodes having a radius greater than the at least three electrodes and arranged around the at least three electrodes. Jennings et al. discloses a system comprising a pedestal including at least three electrodes 112 having a pie shape and a plurality of arc-shaped electrodes114 having a radius greater than the at least three electrodes and arranged around the at least three electrodes (see, for example, Fig. 9 and its description, Fig. 9 is shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
197
160
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen and Kusuda et al. or Yamashita et al. or Negishi et al., as to comprise the claimed electrodes configuration because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently provide radial and azimuthal control plasma density within the plasma region and/or preemptively offset a known non-uniformity pattern characteristic of a substrate being processed.
Regarding claim 20, it should be noted that the at least three electrodes and the plurality of arc-shaped electrodes of the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen and Kusuda et al. or Yamashita et al. or Negishi et al. and Jennings et al. are arranged in the pedestal in one or more planes parallel to a horizontal plane.
With respect to claim 25, it should be noted that Gardner discloses a plurality of switches 1-5 wherein the controller 230 is configured to connect to the at least three electrodes using the plurality of switches; (see, for example, Figs. 2-3 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0014). It should be noted that it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the controller to the at least three electrodes and the plurality of arc-shaped electrodes in pairs using the plurality of switches, with each of the pairs including a different one of the at least three electrodes and a different one of the plurality of arc-shaped electrodes as claimed, depending upon, for example, the desired/required holding and/or plasma characteristics.
Regarding claim 30, Larsen discloses connecting the at least three electrodes to a first DC potential 208 having a first polarity, and connecting the plurality of circumferential electrodes to a second DC potential 202 having a second polarity. With respect to the second polarity being opposite to the first polarity, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The first DC potential and the second DC potential of the apparatus of Gardner modified by Larsen and Kusuda et al. or Yamashita et al. or Negishi et al. and Jennings et al. are capable of having opposite polarities if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benjamin et al. (US 2017/0032935) is cited for its teachings of a pedestal comprising an electrode having at least three electrodes having a pie-shape configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights