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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-23 and 25-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add the bipolar ESC chuck and the RF electrodes, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2014/0231389 to Nagami et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0350649 to Gomm is presented below.
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) 21-23 and 26-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0231389 to Nagami et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0350649 to Gomm.
In regards to Claim 21, Nagami teaches an apparatus Fig. 1, 2 for generic for specific measurement for preventing or suppressing arcing [0009-0017], comprising a processing chamber 10; a radiofrequency RF power source (28, 30), a substrate pedestal 12 for supporting a substrate W within the processing chamber; the substrate pedestal comprising an electrostatic chuck 38 and an RF electrode 12 [0053], a shower head 70 positioned within the processing chamber, the shower head arranged to dispense gas that is turned into a plasma within the processing chamber [0049], the plasma developing a DC self-bias potential on the substrate surface [0012-0017; 0055]; and a DC bias control system (the combination of 84+32+110+144+104) configured to apply a DC bias voltage via DC power source supply 104, 144 to the electrostatic chuck to suppress arcing/discharge between the substrate and the substrate pedestal [0008-0009; 0012-0165].
Nagami does not expressly teach a RF power source, the substrate pedestal comprising a pair of electrostatic chuck (ESC) clamping electrodes embedded in the substrate pedestal, and an RF electrode embedded in the substrate pedestal and provided around the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and between the ESC clamping electrodes of the pair of ESC clamping electrodes, wherein the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and the RF electrode are coupled to the RF source, the RF potential applied creates a plasma that the pair of the ESC clamping electrodes and the RF electrode.
Gomm teaches an apparatus Fig. 1, comprising a processing chamber 102; a radiofrequency (RF) source (RF energy cited in [0023], and combined with 110, 112, [0021]) wherein the lower RF electrode is preferably supplied with RF energy during processing); a substrate pedestal 106 for supporting a substrate within the processing chamber, the substrate pedestal comprising a pair of electrostatic chuck (ESC) clamping electrodes 304, 306 Fig. 5, 6 embedded in the substrate pedestal (as shown in Fig. 7, and an RF electrode 302, 302a embedded in the substrate pedestal and provided around the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and between the ESC clamping electrodes of the pair of ESC clamping electrodes (as shown in Fig. 6 where 302a connects two ends of the ring of 302), wherein the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and the RF electrode are coupled to the RF source [0034]; a shower head 104 positioned within the processing chamber, the shower head arranged to dispense gas that is turned into a plasma within the processing chamber in response to an RF potential applied to the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and the RF electrode by the RF source [0021-0026; 0018-0043].
Gomm teaches the substrate pedestal comprises a body of non-conductive ceramic material and wherein the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and the RF electrode embedded in the body (ceramic of aluminum nitride [0037]).
Gomm teaches that eliminating the power distribution electrodes arms using a power distribution electrode arms eliminates out of plane inductors and simplifies the manufacturing processing of the pedestal [0032].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have substituted the substrate pedestal of Nagami with separated ESC chuck/RF lower electrode with the substrate pedestal of Gomm with a sintered ESC chuck and RF combined electrode. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to simplify the manufacture of the pedestal and eliminate out of plane inductors, as per the teachings of Gomm. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 22, Nagami teaches the DC bias control system is further configured to apply the DC bias voltage to the RF electrode, as 84 is connected to 12.
In regards to Claims 23, Nagami in view of Gomm teaches the opposing clamping potentials applied to the ESC are adjusted by the DC bias voltage, as 84 and 104 are applied to the combined teachings of Nagami in view of Gomm and the resulting substrate pedestal therein.
In regards to Claims 26-27, Nagami teaches the DC bias voltage developed by the plasma and the substrate pedestal have a voltage differential of 10 volts or less or 0.1 volts or less, as the potential of the substrate is equal to the self-bias [0014], such that the difference is zero, a range that sufficiently fulfills the limitation of the claim.
In regards to Claim 28, Nagami in view of Gomm teaches the ESC clamping electrode of the pair of ESC clamping electrodes is D-shaped as shown in Fig. 5 of Gomm.
In regards to Claims 29 and 30, Nagami in view of Gomm teaches the substrate pedestal comprises a body made of a non-conductive ceramic material, and wherein the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and the RF electrode are embedded in the body, as per the teachings of Gomm, as Gomm teaches the substrate pedestal comprises a body of non-conductive ceramic material and wherein the pair of ESC clamping electrodes and the RF electrode embedded in the body (ceramic of aluminum nitride [0037]).
Claim(s) 21-23 and 26-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0231389 to Nagami et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0350649 to Gomm, as per the rejection of Claim 21 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0247265 to Devine et al.
The teachings of Nagami in view of Gomm are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 25, Nagami in view of Gomm do not expressly teach the processing chamber further includes two or more substrate pedestals.
Devine teaches a plasma processing apparatus Fig. 10 with a single chamber 108 that is separated with a partition 160 that has two substrate pedestals 120, 122 [0011-0048]. Devine teaches this tandem processing apparatus allows for batch processing using the same or different processes and replacing the partition allows for modified exchange characteristics and different processes [0003-0015].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Nagami in view of Gomm, with the teachings of Device. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to batch treat more than one substrate at a time or perform different processes by having a removable partition for the singular chamber. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716