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 Group I, Species A, and Species F in the reply filed on 6 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 1-14 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Each of claims 2, 4-8, and 12-13 refer to the first power supply part either directly or indirectly. Each of claims 3, 9-11 and 14 refer to the second power supply part either directly or indirectly. However, both the first power supply part and the second power supply part are set forth as optional in claim 1. Thus, any claim that relies upon the presence of the first power supply part or the second power supply part is unclear. Furthermore, in order to expedite examination, where an interpretation of the claimed invention as compared to the relied upon prior art relies on the aforementioned optionality, any claim that requires the optional feature is itself also considered optional. Clarification and/or correction is requested. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites the first electrode comprises a first adsorption power source electrically connected to itself. The claim is nonsensical. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite the first power supply part further comprises a first adsorption power source… and has examined accordingly.
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites the first electrode comprises a second adsorption power source power source electrically connected to itself. The claim is nonsensical. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite the first power supply part further comprises second adsorption power source … and has examined accordingly.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0200588 to Joubert et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0088519 to Cho et al.
Regarding claim 1: in Figs. 1-2, Joubert et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus substantially as claimed, and comprising: a plasma processing chamber (100); a base (135) disposed in the plasma processing chamber; an electrostatic chuck (132) disposed on the base, and comprising a substrate mounting portion, and an edge ring mounting portion on which an edge ring (232 and 234) surrounding a substrate (e.g., 108) mounted on the substrate mounting portion is mounted; and at least one of a first power supply part (multiple features/structures) that supplies power to the substrate mounting portion and a second power supply (multiple features/structures) that supplies power to the edge ring mounting portion, wherein (when provided) the first power supply part comprises: a first electrode layer (151 and 153) formed as part of the substrate mounting portion; a first adsorption electrode layer (121) disposed under the first electrode layer in the substrate portion (i.e. in the electrostatic chuck); and a first bias source (150) electrically connected to the first electrode layer.
However, Joubert et al. fail to disclose the first electrode layer formed on a substrate mounting surface of the substrate mounting portion.
As an alternative to the configuration of the electrode layer provided in Joubert et al., Cho et al. disclose an electrostatic chuck disposed on a base having a first electrode layer (see, e.g., Figs. 1, 3A-3C, 335) formed on a substrate mounting surface of a substrate mounting portion of an electrostatic chuck (top surface of 300B) for the purpose of forming a first electrode layer capable of capacitively coupling a pulsed DC power source to a substrate through a capacitance of the first electrode layer in a plasma assisted or plasma enhanced processing chamber (see, e.g., paras. 5-7, 24-31). Examiner also notes that the courts have that ruled that a mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); and 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).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was made to have provided in Joubert et al. a rearranged and equivalent first electrode layer formed on a substrate mounting surface of a substrate mounting portion of an electrostatic chuck in order to form a first electrode layer capable of capacitively coupling a pulsed DC power source to a substrate through a capacitance of the first electrode layer in a plasma assisted or plasma enhanced processing chamber as taught by Cho et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Joubert et al., Joubert et al. disclose the first electrode layer (e.g., 153) has an area that does not overlap the first adsorption electrode layer, in plan view (i.e. a view from above the electrostatic chuck).
With respect to claim 4, in modified Joubert et al., Joubert et al. disclose the first electrode layer (e.g., 153) is formed on an outer peripheral side of the substrate mounting surface.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Joubert et al., Joubert et al. disclose the first electrode layer is formed at a center of an upper surface of a seal band (e.g. vertical peripheral surface of upper portion of 135) of the substrate mounting surface, in side view.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Joubert et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. Patent No. 2011/0096461 to Yoshikawa et al.
Modified Joubert et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Joubert et al. fail to disclose the first power supply part comprises a first adsorption power source electrically connected to the first adsorption electrode layer.
Yoshikawa et al. disclose the first power supply part further includes a first adsorption power sources electrically connected to the first electrode layer for the purpose of simultaneously applying voltages for attraction and plasma control (see, e.g., Fig. 1B and paras. 10, 15, 31 and 33).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the first power supply part of modified Joubert et al. further includes a first adsorption power source electrically connected to the first electrode layer for the purpose of simultaneously applying voltages for attraction and plasma control as taught by Yoshikawa et al.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Joubert et al., Joubert et al. disclose the first power supply part further comprises a second adsorption power source (125) electrically connected to the first adsorption electrode layer.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Joubert et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. Patent No. 2019/0157043 to Shaw et al.
Modified Joubert et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Joubert et al. fail to disclose the first power supply part comprises a first plasma generating power source electrically connected to the first electrode layer.
Shaw et al. disclose a configuration wherein a first bias source and a first plasma generating power source are electrically connected to a first electrode layer for the purpose of providing an apparatus capable of controlling the uniformity and intensity of capacitively (or inductively) coupled plasmas both spatially and temporally (see, e.g., Fig. 4 and paras. 1-39). Examiner also notes that the courts have that ruled that a mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein at least Joubert et al. disclose an alternative plasma generating power source (148).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a first bias source and a first plasma generating power source are electrically connected to the first electrode layer in order to provide an apparatus capable of controlling the uniformity and intensity of capacitively (or inductively) coupled plasmas both spatially and temporally as taught by Shaw et al.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Joubert et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0244795 to Tandou et al.
Modified Joubert et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, while in modified Joubert et al., Cho et al. do disclose the substrate mounting portion comprising at least one first through hole for accommodating a lift pin (136), modified Joubert et al. fail to disclose a first conductive film is formed on an inner surface of the first through hole to be electrically conductive to the first electrode layer.
Tandou et al. disclose a substrate support having a first conductive film (see, e.g., Fig. 4, 4210-32) is formed on an inner surface of a first through hole to be electrically conductive to a first electrode layer (202-1) for the purpose of suppressing temperature variations across the substrate support and improve the yield of axial atomic processing (also see, e.g., paras. 14-21, 94-99, 117). Note: although Tandou et al. does not teach high conductivity for the first conductive film, it does teach that the conductive film will have conductivity (relative value for dielectric constant/relative permittivity) that can be managed based on the particular material selected.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a first conductive film is formed on an inner surface of a first through hole to be electrically conductive to a first electrode layer in order to suppress temperature variations across the substrate support and improve the yield of axial atomic processing as taught by Tandou et al.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Joubert et al., Joubert et al. and Cho et al. both disclose the base is formed of a conductive material, such that depending on conditions in the plasma processing apparatus, the base and the first conductive film may be electrically connected to each other as desired. See above, regarding intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. No. 2010/0046134 disclose an electrostatic chuck device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights