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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 3, “an” should be “a”.
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, 4-6, 9, 10, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Yamamoto teaches a processing apparatus (Fig. 11) comprising an electrostatic chuck (Title) configured to hold a semiconductor wafer (Paragraph 0008 – wafer 5) during a process performed on the semiconductor wafer (Paragraph 0030 – plasma processing); a first electrode configured to bias a first region of the electrostatic chuck with a first bias (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7 – electrode 1); a second electrode configured to bias a second region of the electrostatic chuck with a second bias, wherein the first bias and the second bias have different phases (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7 – electrode (s) 2 or 3) (Paragraph 0030 - The substrate 5 is mounted on a sample stage 9 composed of an R-phase electrode 1, an S-phase electrode 2, a T-phase electrode 3 and an insulating body 4.)
PNG
media_image1.png
334
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
Yamamoto teaches wherein a gap is defined between the first electrode and the second electrode wherein the gas is annular and wherein the gap electrically isolates the first electrode from the second electrode. (Fig. 7)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Yamamoto teaches wherein a gap is defined between the first and second electrode, wherein the gap is linear and extends across the electrostatic chuck to divide the chuck into independently controllable bias zones. (Fig. 9)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
Yamamoto teaches a controller configured to change the first and the second bias during the process. (Fig. 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
Yamamoto teaches a third electrode configured to bias a third region of the electrostatic chuck with a third bias, wherein the first electrode is centrally located, the second electrode is annular and surrounds the first electrode and the third electrode is annular and surrounds the second electrode. (Fig. 7 – electrodes 1, 2, 3)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Yamamoto teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising a plasma chamber configured to receive a semiconductor wafer for a plasma process; a first electrode disposed in the plasma chamber and configured to bias a first zone of the semiconductor wafer with a first bias; a second electrode disposed in the plasma chamber and configured to bias a second zone of the semiconductor wafer with a second bias, wherein the first bias and second bias have different phases. (Fig. 11, Paragraphs 0008, 0030, Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
Yamamoto teaches a method of plasma processing comprising supporting a workpiece with an electrostatic chuck; igniting a plasma over the workpiece and directing a direction of in flow by applying a first bias directly from a first electrode that defines a first region of the electrostatic chuck and applying a second bias directly from a second electrode that defines a second region of the electrostatic chuck. (Fig. 11, Paragraphs 0008, 0030, 0034-0036, Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7 – ion flow inherently effected by the bias voltages as shown in Fig. 3 (i.e. negative and positive voltages effect the ion flow))
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Yamamoto teaches in Fig. 3 further comprising creating different ion bombardment energies at the first and second region via the first bias and second bias. (Fig. 3 – Voltage levels at different time with phase shifting)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Yamamoto teaches wherein the second electrode is an annular electrode surrounding the first electrode; and applying the second bias directly from the second electrode comprises directly controlling ion bombardment energy in an annular processing zone. (See Fig. 7, Fig. 3 – Voltage levels at different time with phase shifting)
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.
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Frutiger (U.S. Pat. 5,452,177).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is a first direct current power source directly coupled to the first electrode and a second direct current power source directly coupled to the second electrode.
Regarding claim 2:
Yamamoto discussed above teach RF sources providing biases to the electrodes. (See Yamamoto discussed above) RF signals are considered to be AC.
Frutiger et al. teach that electrostatic chucks can use AC or DC voltage. (Column 3 lines 43-46)
Frutiger et al. teach utilizing square out of phase voltages to for electrostatic chucking. (Column 15 lines 10-66)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Frutiger because it allows for wafer clamping. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yamamoto by utilizing DC in place of Yamamoto’s RF signals as taught by Frutiger because it allows for wafer clamping.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Frutiger as applies to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ohshita et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2022/0139672 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a direct current (DC) power source; and a resistor-inductor-capacitor (RLC) circuit coupled to the DC power source and configured to provide a first output with a first bias to the first electrode and a second output with a second bias to the second electrode.
Regarding claim 3, Ohshita et al. teach a direct current (DC) power source; and a resistor-inductor-capacitor (RLC) circuit coupled to the DC power source. The DC power source is provided with a first output with a first bias to a first electrode. (See Fig. 3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ohshita et al. is that it allows for pulsing of the bias. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would be obvious to utilize the teachings of Ohshita et al. because it allows for pulsing the bias.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Selwyn et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,716,486).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the controller is configured to provide the first bias and second bias with a different voltage and/or power is not discussed.
Regarding claim 7, Selwyn et al. teach a controller is configured to provide the first bias and second bias with a different voltage and/or power (Column 8 lines 27-37)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the process is a plasma etching or deposition process, and wherein the first bias and the second bias control process uniformity across the semiconductor wafer during the process is not discussed.
Regarding claim 8, Selwyn et al. teach wherein the process is a plasma etching or deposition process, and wherein the first bias and the second bias control process uniformity across the semiconductor wafer during the process. (Column 7 lines 34-50; Column 8 lines 27-37)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Selwyn et al. is that it allows for reducing plasma irregularities. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Selwyn et al. because it allows for reducing plasma irregularities.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Frutiger (U.S. Pat. 5,452,177).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is a first direct current power source directly coupled to the first electrode and a second direct current power source directly coupled to the second electrode wherein the first and second DC power sources are configured to generate pulsed DC signals with different phases, and wherein the first and second DC power sources are directly connected to the first and second electrodes.
Regarding claim 11:
Yamamoto discussed above teach RF sources providing biases to the electrodes. (See Yamamoto discussed above) RF signals are considered to be AC.
Frutiger et al. teach that electrostatic chucks can use AC or DC voltage. (Column 3 lines 43-46)
Frutiger et al. teach utilizing square out of phase voltages to for electrostatic chucking. (Column 15 lines 10-66)
Frutiger et al. teach pulsing in Fig. 11 that is out of phase. (See Fig. 11)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Frutiger because it allows for wafer clamping. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yamamoto by utilizing DC in place of Yamamoto’s RF signals as taught by Frutiger because it allows for wafer clamping.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Grosshart et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,737,175)
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a direct current (DC) power source; and a resistor-inductor-capacitor (RLC) circuit coupled to the DC power source and configured to provide a first output with a first bias to the first electrode and a second output with a second bias to the second electrode.
Regarding claim 12, Grosshart et al. teach a direct current (DC) power source; and a resistor-inductor-capacitor (RLC) circuit coupled to the DC power source and configured to provide a first output with a first bias to the first electrode and a second output with a second bias to the second electrode. (See Fig. 1 – L inductor, resistors and capacitors)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Grosshart et al. is that it allows for creating clamping force. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would be obvious to utilize the teachings of Grosshart et al. because it allows for clamping.
Claim(s) 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Bi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2023/0369091 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are separated by an annular gap having a radial width of 1 to 30 mm wherein the annular gap is configured to enable independent control of ion bombardment energy in the first zone and the second zone.
Regarding claim 13, Bi et al. teach a gap of 2.2 mm to 7.5 mm. (Paragraph 0010)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are separated by a linear gap, wherein the linear gap divides a substrate support area into at least two independently controllable bias zones for controlling plasm etch or deposition uniformity.
Yamamoto already teaches a linear gap as discussed above for plasma processing and uniformity. (See Yamamoto discussed above)
Bi et al. teach plasma can be utilized for etching or deposition. (Paragraph 0004)
The motivation for utilizing a gap of 2.2 mm to 7.5 mm is that it allows for supporting a substrate. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Bi et al. because it allows for supporting the substrate.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Selwyn et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,716,486).
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a controller configured to change the first bias and the second bias during the plasma process, wherein the controller is configured to dynamically adjust at least one of voltage, phase, and duty cycle of the first and second biases in response to real-time process monitoring to maintain process uniformity across the semiconductor wafer.
Regarding claim 15, Selwyn et al. teach a controller configured to change the first bias and the second bias during the plasma process, wherein the controller is configured to dynamically adjust at least one of voltage, phase, and duty cycle of the first and second biases in response to real-time process monitoring to maintain process uniformity across the semiconductor wafer. (Column 8 lines 27-37)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Selwyn et al. is that it allows controlling uniformity. (Column 8 lines 27-37)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Yamamoto by utilizing the features of Selwyn e al. because it allows for controlling uniformity.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Frutiger (U.S. Pat. 5,452,177) and Ohshita et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2022/0139672 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a direct current (DC) power source; and a resistor-inductor-capacitor (RLC) circuit coupled to the DC power source and configured to provide a first output with a first bias to the first electrode and a second output with a second bias to the second electrode.
Regarding claim 19:
Yamamoto discussed above teach RF sources providing biases to the electrodes. (See Yamamoto discussed above) RF signals are considered to be AC.
Frutiger et al. teach that electrostatic chucks can use AC or DC voltage. (Column 3 lines 43-46)
Frutiger et al. teach utilizing square out of phase voltages to for electrostatic chucking. (Column 15 lines 10-66)
Ohshita et al. teach a direct current (DC) power source; and a resistor-inductor-capacitor (RLC) circuit coupled to the DC power source. The DC power source is provided with a first output with a first bias to a first electrode. (See Fig. 3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Frutiger because it allows for wafer clamping. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ohshita et al. is that it allows for pulsing of the bias. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yamamoto by utilizing DC in place of Yamamoto’s RF signals as taught by Frutiger because it allows for wafer clamping and to have utilized an RLC circuit as taught by Ohshita because it allows for pulsing the bias.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) in view of Selwyn et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,716,486) and Hayashi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0384060 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the electrostatic chuck is a first electrostatic chuck including the first electrode defining the first region and [[a]] the second electrode defining the second region in a first arrangement, and wherein the method further comprises: replacing the first electrostatic chuck with a second electrostatic chuck including a second arrangement of a first replacement electrode and a second replacement electrode, wherein the first replacement electrode defines a third region of the second electrostatic chuck and the second replacement electrode defines a fourth region of the second electrostatic chuck; supporting a second workpiece with the second electrostatic chuck; igniting a plasma over the second workpiece; and directing a direction of ion flow by applying a third bias from the first replacement electrode and applying a fourth bias from the second replacement electrode.
Regarding claim 20, Selwyn et al. teach electrostatic chuck is a first electrostatic chuck and includes a first electrode defining the first region and a second electrode defining the second region in a first arrangement. (See Selwyn et al. discussed above)
Hayashi et al. teach replacing the first electrostatic chuck with a second electrostatic chuck. The chuck would have a first replacement electrode and second replacement electrode which defines third and fourth regions. (Paragraph 0007)
Hayashi et al. teach supporting a second workpiece with the second electrostatic chuck; igniting a plasma over the second workpiece; and directing a direction of ion flow by applying a third and fourth bias to the first replacement electrode and the second replacement electrode of the electrostatic chuck (Paragraph 0039 - replace wafers and electrostatic chucks)
Selwyn et al. teach directing a direction of ion flow by applying a first bias to the first region of the electrostatic chuck and applying a second bias to the second region of the electrostatic chuck. (See Selwyn et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Selwyn et al. is that it allows controlling uniformity. (Column 8 lines 27-37)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Hayashi et al. is that it allows for replacing spent electrostatic chucks. (Paragraph 0007)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Selwyn et al. and Hayashi et al. because it allows for controlling uniformity and for replacing spent electrostatic chucks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the limitation of where the first and second biases have different phases, it is argued that the newly applied reference to Yamamoto (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0165044 A1) teach applying first and second biases having different phases. (See Yamamoto discussed above)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
March 11, 2026