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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Verbaas is disquieted because applicant filed statement of common ownership for the exception provided under 102(b)(2)(C). New art by Leeser teaches an ESC configured to be operable under monopolar, dipolar and multipolar arrangements.
Applicant also argues that Hipp teaches wireless data transmission. Examiner maintains that Hipp teaches both wireless data transmission as well as wireless power transmission via induction to a battery in an ESC arrangement. The new rejection also included additional prior art by Hsiao for teaching wireless power transmission.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10-12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20100132615) in view of Yoon (US 20200126836), Honma (US 20160083841) and Leeser (20240136161).
Kato discloses a semiconductor processing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a processing chamber (1) with a showerhead (31, 32, 41, 42 [0066, 0072]); and a circular ceramic susceptor (turntable 7) disposed in the processing chamber, the ceramic susceptor being coupled to a central susceptor shaft (72, [0063]), the ceramic susceptor comprising a first wafer pocket (concave portions 74, Fig. 2 [0064] and Fig. 6 , [0089]), the first wafer pocket comprising a first ceramic electrostatic chuck ([0065]) for supporting a first wafer, the ceramic susceptor being configured to rotate the first wafer pocket under the showerhead.
Kato does not disclose the chuck is configured to rotate with the wafer pocket.
Yoon teaches an apparatus including a plurality of electrostatic chucks 170 on a rotatable susceptor (rotating plate 124, [0020]) wherein each chuck is also magnetically rotatable on its own axis (Fig. 4, [0046, 0047, 0062-0064]) in order to improve process uniformity ([0002, 0046, 0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rotatable chuck structure as taught by Yoon in the apparatus of Kato in order to improve process uniformity.
Kato does not expressly disclose the susceptor is ceramic.
However, ceramic is an obvious choice of material for making susceptor. For example, Honma teaches a susceptor made of ceramic material for its high resistance against corrosive gases and high temperature ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the susceptor made of ceramic material for its high resistance against corrosive gases and high temperature.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Kato in view of Yoon and Honma as discussed above does not explicitly disclose the electrostatic chuck is configured to operate as a bipolar electrostatic chuck, a multipolar electrostatic chuck, and as a monopolar electrostatic chuck.
Leeser teaches an electrostatic chuck wherein DC signals are sent to electrostatic electrodes at various locations in the substrate support (Fig. 3D, [0033-0039, 0053-0056, 0107]). The ESC arrangement is configured to selectively apply same or different DC signals to different electrodes and thus it can act as monopolar, bipolar or multipolar electrostatic chuck in order to control the applied potential to different sets of ESC electrodes selectively and to enable the measurement and adjustment of ESC-to-showerhead relative tilt ([0107]) as desired. Monopolar, bipolar and multipolar clamping arrangements are exemplified in Figs 3B-3D ([0137, 0146, 0213, Figs. 2B-2F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the chuck mechanism as taught by Leeser in the apparatus of Kato in view of Yoon and Honma in order to make it capable of being operated selectively as monopolar, dipolar and multipolar and to enable the measurement and adjustment of ESC-to-showerhead relative tilt as desired. Further, regarding operation of the ESC, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that different levels of potentials are applied to an ESC to chuck (during processing such as deposition or etching) or de-chuck (after the processing for releasing the substrate).
Regarding claim 8: The electrostatic chuck of Yoon includes power supply 114, DC line 200 passing through disk support 122 and configured to distribute power to electrostatic chucks 170 ([0062, 0076]).
Claim(s) 3, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20100132615) in view of Yoon (US 20200126836), Honma (US 20160083841) and Leeser (20240136161) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Kaneno (US 5782979).
Kato in view of Yoon and Honma as discussed above does not teach a gas outlet for releasing gas below a central region of the first wafer pocket and to enable rotation of the ceramic plate.
Kaneno teaches an apparatus wherein a chuck is rotatable using pneumatic mechanism wherein the chuck is rotated by blowing gas to an under surface of the chuck (Figs. 15-18, [30-38]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pneumatic rotational mechanism as taught by Kaneno in the apparatus of Kato in view of Yoon, Honma and Leeser as an alternative mechanism for rotating the chuck.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20100132615) in view of Yoon (US 20200126836), Honma (US 20160083841) and Leeser (20240136161) as applied to claims 1, 11 above, and further in view of Hipp (US 20170148652) or Hsiao (20120227886).
Kato in view of Yoon and Honma as discussed above does not teach a circuitry for receiving power wirelessly to power the rotation of the ceramic plate.
Hipp teaches a device for processing wafer-shaped articles, comprising a wireless rotary chuck mounted for rotation within a surrounding enclosure. (abstract, claims 1, 4, [0015, 0029]). [0029] In preferred embodiments of the rotary chuck according to the present invention, a coil is mounted in the chuck body and is electrically connected to the battery so as to permit the battery to be recharged by a current induced wirelessly in the coil ([0042] Bus 58 also allows these components to be powered via battery 64, which in turn can be charged by current induced wirelessly in the induction coil 57. Claim 5 discloses the device according to claim 4, further comprising a coil mounted in said rotary chuck and electrically connected to said battery so as to permit said battery to be recharged by a current induced wirelessly in said coil. Claim 8. Discloses the device according to claim 7, further comprising a coil mounted in said rotary chuck and electrically connected to said capacitor so as to permit said capacitor to be charged by a current induced wirelessly in said coil).
Hsiao also discloses an electrostatic cuck assembly comprising a wireless power receiving mechanism (Fig. 4) wherein an inductor 76 acts as a wireless power receiver for receiving the power from inductor 78, which is external to electrostatic chuck carrier 20 ([0024], claims 2, 7, 9, 13, 18, 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the wireless mechanism as taught by Hipp or Hsiao in the apparatus of Kato in view of Yoon, Honma and Leeser as an alternative mechanism for rotating the chuck. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 5-7, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20100132615) in view of Yoon (US 20200126836), Honma (US 20160083841) and Leeser (20240136161) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Divakar (US 20010043452) and Sago (US 7220319) or Sherman (US 5535090).
Kato in view of Yoon, Honma and Leeser as discussed above does not expressly disclose the specifics of the ceramic material and electrode material and thickness of the dielectric layer above the electrode surface.
Divakar teaches an electrostatic chuck ([0010, 0031-0032]) wherein the suitable film electrodes include a metal, such as, for example, molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), or combinations thereof. Suitable substrates include a ceramic material such as aluminum nitride, (AlN), alumina (aluminum oxide or Al.sub.2O.sub.3) boron nitride (BN), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), combinations thereof and other materials. Suitable ceramic layers can include AlN, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, BN, Si.sub.3N.sub.4, combinations thereof and other materials. In a preferred embodiment, the substrate and the dielectric layer are fabricated from the same material.
These materials are known to be capable of being operated at high temperature of 800C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the chuck as taught by Divakar in the apparatus of Kato in view of Yoon, Honma and Leeserin order to be capable of being operated at high temperature.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 14, 15, 16: The electrostatic cuck of Divakar wherein the dielectric layer 22 (Fig. 1) has a thickness ranging from about 50 microns to about 5000 microns as an optimized range of thickness for the dielectric layer (claim 4, [0017 of Divakar).
Further regarding claims 7, 13, 14, 16: Divakar discloses various method of making electrostatic chuck wherein the ceramic layers are sintered (welded) together ([0023-0028, 0031-0032]) in order to make an integrated chuck. The resulting assembly is heated, thereby sintering green layer 32 of ceramic material into dielectric layer 22 and forming electrostatic chuck 10 shown in FIG. 1.[0032] Optionally, the resulting electrostatic chuck can be heat treated. Heat treating can be conducted at a soak temperature, in an atmosphere and for a period of time suitable to the particular materials employed in fabricating the chuck. For AlN, for example, heat treating can be at a soak temperature in excess of 1000.degree C.
Furthermore, Sago teaches an electrostatic chuck wherein the components of the chuck are joined together by brazing ([22], claims 3, 7, 12, 16).
Similarly, Sherman teaches an electrostatic chuck wherein the components of the chuck are joined together by brazing (abstract, [19-23, 3, 6-9, claims 7, 11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use brazing as an obvious choice for joining chuck components together.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Larsen (US-6362946) discloses a plurality of ESC electrodes wherein clamping voltages are preferably bipolar square waves having six different phases (Fig. 9, [7], [21]).
Eytan (US-8804299) discloses a plurality of bipolar ESC electrodes (Fig. 1-10). The electrostatic chuck is also operated in a discharging mode in which the discharging element is coupled to a discharging circuit for discharging charge accumulated in the isolating substrate. Subsequently, the wafer is removed from the electrostatic chuck ([21]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Parviz Hassanzadeh whose telephone number is (571)272-1435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-1446. 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.
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights