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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1, 15 is/are amended; claim(s) 18 is/are newly added.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Emoto in addition to previously relied on references below.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify Koyama to have a different pattern of the projection portions, further that Koyama much have some projections if there are particles.
Examiner notes that Koyama states (para. [0098] that if there are no particles adhered to the substrate then a flat surface can be used. It is unclear why Applicant is speculating beyond what Koyama is teaching. Koyama is explicitly teaching that another embodiment is possible if a certain condition is met, which thus presents an obviousness rationale, and therefore reads on claim 1 amended limitation.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claim 1 that it would not be obvious to modify Koyama’s mounting portion 20 to make it planar, such as with the design in Okita, doing so would eliminate the benefits of Koyama’s design; projection portions 20c help form the gas-filling portions 19 to reduce particles.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Applicant may be confusing the definition of “flat” with the definition of “planar.” Flat refers to surface or objects that lack depth or are relatively smooth, has a continuous horizontal surface (definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary). “Planar” is defined as relating to or lying in a plane, or two-dimensional in quality (definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary). With these definitions clarified, Applicant’s arguments are referring to “flat” surfaces, and not “planar” surfaces. Further, Applicant’s own invention has surfaces that appear to be planar but not flat (see at least Fig. 5 of Applicant’s drawings) which show a large aperture in the center of the cover, and three surrounding non-referenced structures that appear to stick out of the cover vertically. Additionally, it appears that Koyama and Okita, as well as Applicant’s own invention, exhibit planar surface characteristics according to the clarified definitions above (though not explicitly expressed in Koyama).
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein the substrate support region of the second face is flat from an edge of the aperture to an outer perimeter of the cover.” Applicant does not have support in the disclosure for “flat.”
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 1 recites the limitation "wherein the substrate support region of the second face is flat from an edge of the aperture to an outer perimeter of the cover” in the claim. It is unclear how Applicant states in the arguments (p. filed 04/30/2026) that the cover is flat. At best, the specification discloses that the cover may be a disc or disc-like, having a “substantially flat,” circular shape or appearance. Additionally, Examiner has already stated in a previous response to arguments that there appear to be three structures that protrude from the cover. Applicant does not have support for absolute “flat.” Examiner interprets as “wherein the substrate support region of the second face is substantially flat from an edge of the aperture to an outer perimeter of the cover.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090310274 to Koyama in view of US 20150126038 to Okita, US 20050016685 to Emoto.
Claims 1, 18: Koyama discloses a method of processing a substrate comprising the steps of: providing an electrostatic chuck (12 [base], Fig. 5) comprising an upper surface (12a [upper surface]); positioning a cover (20 [mounting portion]) that is a single piece (20) on the electrostatic chuck (12) to cover the upper surface thereof (para. [0038]), the cover (20) comprising a first face (20d [lower surface]) adjacent the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck (12a of 12), a second face (20b/20c) for supporting the substrate (17 [substrate], para. [0040]), and one or more conduits (21 [gas channels]) extending through the cover (20) to permit a cooling gas to flow from the first face to the second face (para. [0055]), wherein the second face (20b/20c) includes a substrate support region (20b/20c);
positioning the substrate (17) on the second face of the cover (20, para. [0040]); operating the electrostatic chuck (12) to electrostatically clamp the substrate in position (para. [0044]), wherein the substrate is electrostatically coupled to the electrostatic chuck (12) through the cover (20, para. [0051], Fig. 6); flowing a cooling gas from the first face to the second face via the one or more conduits to cool the substrate (para. [0049]-[0055] cooling gas is interpreted to be flowed through heat exchange); and processing the substrate (para. [0054]).
Koyama does not explicitly disclose and a peripheral region radially outward of the substrate support region, wherein the substrate support region has a diameter smaller than that of the clamping region, and wherein the second face in the substrate support region and the second face in the peripheral region are coplanar; wherein the substrate support region of the second face is planar.
Okita discloses a peripheral region (“outer peripheral side part” of 5 on 17, Fig. 2, para. [0044]) radially outward of the substrate support region (central part of 5 on 17), wherein the substrate support region (central part of 5 on 17) has a diameter smaller than that of the clamping region (where 24 [first attraction electrostatic attraction electrode] is located), and wherein the second face in the substrate support region and the second face in the peripheral region are coplanar (see Fig. 2), wherein the substrate support region (central part of 5 on 17) of the second face (top face) is planar (see Fig. 2), for the purpose of placing a cover (ring) on the outer peripheral portion (para. [0044]) and/or for the purpose of improving both the plasma process performance and the cooling performance (para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the peripheral region as taught by Okita with motivation to place a cover (ring) on the outer peripheral portion and/or for the purpose of improving both the plasma process performance and the cooling performance.
The method of Koyama in view of Okita does not disclose an aperture at a center of the cover that has a larger diameter than that of the conduits, wherein the substrate support region of the second face is substantially flat from an edge of the aperture to an outer perimeter of the cover along a line that bisects the second face.
Emoto discloses an aperture (6 [throughbore], Fig. 1-2) at a center of the cover (1 electrostatic chuck]) that has a larger diameter than that of the mesas (not referenced but shown in Fig. 1), for the purpose of providing a non-contact probe to measure an electrical potential of a wafer (para. [0037]) and/or enabling vacuum attraction to be attainable to allow the chuck that functions as an electrostatic chuck and also as a vacuum chuck, with a very simple structure (para. [0046]). It is noted that the aperture of Emoto is obvious to be larger than the conduits of Koyama.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aperture and requirement as taught by Emoto with motivation to provide a non-contact probe to measure an electrical potential of a wafer and/or enabling vacuum attraction to be attainable to allow the chuck that functions as an electrostatic chuck and also as a vacuum chuck, with a very simple structure.
Koyama discloses another embodiment where wherein the substrate support region of the second face (upper surface of 20) is substantially flat (para. [0098]); (claim 18) wherein the second face of the cover is substantially free of protrusions (para. [0098]), for the purpose of in the case that when such a problem is not caused that the particles are adhered onto the substrate (para. [0098]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the embodiment option as taught by Koyama with motivation to in the case that when such a problem is not caused that the particles are adhered onto the substrate.
Claim 2: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein the cover (20, Fig. 5-6, Koyama) has a thickness of 100-1500 µm (0.2 mm -1.0 mm which lies within the claimed range, para. [0039]).
Claim 3: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein the thickness is 300-1000 µm (0.2 mm -1.0 mm which lies within the claimed range, para. [0039], Koyama).
Claim 4: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto does not disclose wherein the thickness is from 100 um to less than 500 um.
Yet Koyama teaches overlap of the range of 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm for the purpose of a force also attracting and holding the substrate in addition to the cover when generating a coulomb force when a predetermined voltage is applied to the electrostatic chuck (20, para. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the range overlap requirement as taught by Koyama with motivation to a force also attract and hold the substrate in addition to the cover when generating a coulomb force when a predetermined voltage is applied to the electrostatic chuck.
Claim 5: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein the cover (20, Fig. 5-6, Koyama) is a disc or disc-like (Fig. 4-6).
Claim 6: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein the one or more conduits (21, Fig. 5-6, Koyama) are only disposed in a substrate support region (20b/20c, Fig. 6).
Claim 7: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto does not disclose wherein the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck comprises an edge region extending radially outwardly of a clamping region.
Okita discloses wherein the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck (upper surface of 17 [electrostatic chuck], Fig. 2), comprises an edge region (edge region of 17) extending radially outwardly of a clamping region (region surrounding surface above 24 [attraction electrode]), for the purpose of improving both the plasma process performance and the cooling performance (para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the two regions as two regions as taught by Okita with motivation to improve both the plasma process performance and the cooling performance.
Claim 8: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein the cover (20, Fig. 5-6, Koyama) is made from Al2O3 or AIN (para. [0039]).
Claim 9: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein the electrostatic chuck (12, Fig. 5-6, Koyama) further comprises one or more cooling channels (18 [gas channel]) for providing the cooling gas to the first face of the cover (20d of 20, para. [0048]).
Claim 10: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein the electrostatic chuck (12, Fig. 5-6, Koyama) further comprises at least one DC electrode (13 [electrostatic electrodes]) supplied by a DC power supply (“DC power supply” [not shown] but disclosed in para. [0044]).
Claim 12: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto discloses wherein a pressure of the cooling gas is provided by one or more cooling channels (18, para. [0048-0049], Koyama).
Claims 13-14: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto does not disclose (claim 13) wherein the pressure is at least 10 Torr; (claim 14) wherein the pressure is at least 25 Torr.
Yet Koyama discloses wherein the pressure is at least 10 Torr (where pressure range is 0-50 Torr which reads on the claimed amount, para. [0049]), for the purpose of improving a thermal conductivity between the base, the mounting portion (cover), and the substrate (para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pressure requirements as taught by Koyama with motivation to improve a thermal conductivity between the base, the mounting portion (cover), and the substrate.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto as applied to claims 1-10, 12-14, 18 above, and further in view of US 20180122633 to Lesser.
Claim 11: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto does not disclose wherein the electrostatic chuck (140 [pedestal], Fig. 5, 1) further comprises at least one RF electrode (not shown but disclosed, para. [0034]) supplied by an RF power supply (104 [RF power supply], para. [0034]) for the purpose of depositing or forming films over the wafer (para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the RF power supply and RF electrode as taught by Lesser with motivation to deposit or form films over the wafer.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto as applied to claims 1-10, 12-14, 18 above, and further in view of US 20150036259 to Cox.
Claims 15-16: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto does not disclose (claim 15) further comprising lifting the substrate from the cover using lift pins that extend through apertures in the cover; (claim 16) further comprising detaching the cover from the electrostatic chuck after the lifting.
Cox discloses (claim 15) further comprising lifting the substrate (121 [substrate], Fig. 3) from the component plate (120) using lift pins (123 [lift pins]) that extend through apertures (125 [holes]) in the plate component (120, para. [0034]); (claim 16) further comprising detaching the component plate (120) from the support (118 [support body]) after the lifting (para. [0036]) for the purpose of facilitating robotic removal and replacement of the component plate without breaking vacuum thus reducing the cost and time associated with traditional maintenance procedures (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Cox with motivation to facilitate robotic removal and replacement of the component plate without breaking vacuum thus reducing the cost and time associated with traditional maintenance procedures.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto as applied to claims 1-10, 12-14, 18 above, and further in view of US 20160035610 to Park.
Claim 17: The method of Koyama in view of Okita, Emoto does not disclose further comprising positioning an annular focus ring around the substrate.
Park discloses further comprising positioning an annular focus ring (focus ring], Fig. 1) around the substrate (90 [substrate]) for the purpose of improving uniformity of process treatment performed on the substrate (para. [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the annular focus ring as taught by Park with motivation to improve improving uniformity of process treatment performed on the substrate.
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights