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 without traverse of Species I-Figure 2, Species A-Figure 5 in the reply filed on February 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2019/0267218) in view of Taga et al. (U.S. 2019/0013230).
Referring to Figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0035]-[0040], Wang et al. disclose a substrate support 200 used in a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a base 206 formed of ceramic (par.[0035]); an electrostatic chuck 202 disposed on the base (par.[0035]); and a plurality of electrodes 212a, 212b, 212c (pars.[0038]-[0039], wherein the electrostatic chuck 202 includes a central region configured to support a substrate placed thereon, an annular region that extends to surround the central region and is configured to support an edge ring placed thereon, and the plurality of electrodes include a first metal layer 212a disposed between the central region and the base, and a second metal layer 212b, 212c disposed between the annular region and the base (Figs. 2-3).
Wang et al. is silent on a coating layer configuring a surface of the electrostatic chuck.
Referring to Figures 8a-b and paragraphs [0069], [0096], Taga et al. teach a substrate support wherein a coating layer 121, 124 configuring a surface of the electrostatic chuck is used in order to protect the electrostatic chuck from the plasma environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wang et al. with a coating layer configuring a surface of the electrostatic chuck as taught by Taga et al. in order to protect the electrostatic chuck from the plasma environment.
With respect to claim 2, the substrate support of Wang et al. is silent on wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a first resin layer disposed on the base, an electrode layer disposed on the first resin layer, and a second resin layer disposed between the electrode layer and the coating layer . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wang et al. with wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a first resin layer disposed on the base, an electrode layer disposed on the first resin layer, and a second resin layer disposed between the electrode layer and the coating layer.
Referring to Figures 8a,b and paragraphs [0095]-[0097], Taga et al. teach a substrate support wherein it is conventionally known manufacturing method for the electrostatic chuck to include a first resin layer disposed on the base, an electrode layer 10a, 10c disposed on the first resin layer 123, 128, and a second resin layer 125, 129 disposed between the electrode layer and the coating layer 121, 124 which improves ease of formation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wang et al. with wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a first resin layer disposed on the base, an electrode layer disposed on the first resin layer, and a second resin layer disposed between the electrode layer and the coating layer since it is a conventionally known manufacturing method of an electrostatic chuck that improves ease of formation.
With respect to claim 7, the substrate support of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. further includes the substrate support 202, 206 provides at least one hole extending from a lower surface of the base (i.e. power feed line 214, 216 is in a hole in base 206), and the substrate support further comprises at least one power feed line 214, 216 extending through the at least one hole and connected to at least one of the plurality of electrodes 212a, 212b, 212c (Wang et al.-Fig. 2, par[0037]).
With respect to claim 8, the substrate support of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. further includes wherein the at least one power feed line includes a power feed conductor 214 extending in the at least one hole (Wang et al.-Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 16, the substrate support of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. further includes wherein the power feed line 214, 216 includes an inner wall that defines the at least one hole (Wang et al.-Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 18, a plasma processing apparatus of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. further includes wherein a plasma processing chamber 104 (Wang et al.-Fig. 1, par.[0025]); and the substrate support 101, 200, disposed in the plasma processing chamber 104 (Wang et al.-Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2019/0267218) in view of Taga et al. (U.S. 2019/0013230) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Himori et al. (U.S. 2008/0062611).
The teachings of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. have been discussed above. Specifically, Wang et al. teach the first metal layer is disposed on the second base (Fig. 2).
Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. fail to teach wherein the base includes a first base and a second base disposed on the first base, the plurality of electrodes include a third metal layer disposed between the first base and the second base, and the third metal layer bonds the first base and the second base to each other.
Referring to paragraphs [0146]-[0154], Himori et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for wherein the base includes a first base 23 and a second base 24 disposed on the first base, a third metal layer 35 disposed between the first base and the second base, and the third metal layer bonds the first base and the second base to each other since it’s an alternate substrate support arrangement that promotes thermal conductivity and plasma uniformity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. with wherein the base includes a first base and a second base disposed on the first base, the plurality of electrodes include a third metal layer disposed between the first base and the second base, and the third metal layer bonds the first base and the second base to each other as taught by Himori et al. since it’s an alternate substrate support arrangement that promotes thermal conductivity and plasma uniformity.
The resulting apparatus of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. and Himori et al. teaches wherein the base includes a first base and a second base disposed on the first base, the first metal layer is disposed on the second base, the plurality of electrodes include a third metal layer disposed between the first base and the second base, and the third metal layer bonds the first base and the second base to each other.
With respect to claim 4, the substrate support Wang et al. further includes wherein the second metal layer 212b, 212c is disposed on the second base 206 (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2019/0267218) in view of Taga et al. (U.S. 2019/0013230) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Tamura (U.S. 2021/0098239).
The teachings of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. have been discussed above.
Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. is silent on wherein the power feed conductor is formed of metal.
Referring to paragraph [0049], Tamura teach that it is conventionally known in the art for the power feed conductor 103 is formed of metal (i.e. titanium) since it is a conductive material that will electrically connect the electrode with the power source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. with wherein the power feed conductor is formed of metal as taught by Tamura since it is a conductive material that will electrically connect the electrode with the power source. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 10, the substrate support of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. and Tamura further includes wherein the metal is titanium, molybdenum, or tungsten (Tamura-par.[0049]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2019/0267218) in view of Taga et al. (U.S. 2019/0013230) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Inazumachi et al. or Nagasaki et al. (U.S. 5,886,863).
The teachings of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. have been discussed above.
Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. is silent on wherein the power feed conductor is formed of silicon carbide.
Referring to column 8, lines 14-64, Inazumachi et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art for the power feed conductor 103 to be formed of silicon carbide having low specific resistance in order to electrically connect the electrode with the power source. Referring to column 30, line 61-column 32, line 4, Nagaski et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art for the power feed conductor 406 to formed of silicon carbide having low specific resistance in order to electrically connect the electrode with the power source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al. with wherein the power feed conductor is formed of silicon carbide as taught by Inazumachi et al. or Nagasaki et al. since it is a low specific resistance material that electrically connects the electrode with the power source. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 12, the substrate support of Wang et al. in view of Taga et al., and (Inazumachi et al. or Nagasaki et al.) further includes wherein the power feed conductor is formed of silicon (i.e. silicon carbide).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miura et al.’880 teach a titanium power feed conductor. Hayasaka et al.’709 teach a power feed conductor. Tamura et al.’025, Koshimizu’524, and Ishikawa’ 671 teach a plurality of electrodes and an echuck having an electrode layer. Kosakai et al.’517 teach a power feed conductor made of tungsten (W), tantalum (Ta), or molybdenum (Mo). Suzuki et al.’858 teach a coating layer. Sato et al.’109 teach a first and second base. Muramatsu et al.’593 teach a third metal layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights