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 .
Response to Amendments
Entry of Amendments
Claim(s) 13 have been amended.
Objections to the Claims
Amendments made to claim(s) 13 have overcome the previous objections. Claim 13 is no longer objected.
Rejections under 35 USC 112, 102 and 103
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 08/28/2025 with respect to Claim(s) 1-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant(s) argument of [1] “The Examiner’s interpretation that DC voltages cannot have frequency characteristics is overly restrictive and does not align with the common understanding in the semiconductor processing equipment field where pulsed or modulated DC voltages are routinely used. The claims as amended properly reflect this technical implementation and are clear and definite when interpreted from the perspective of one skilled in the art and in light of the specification’s explicit definition.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ordinarily a DC voltage is associated with a fixed voltage. Although, Examiner agrees that a DC voltage can be varied or modulated by an AC voltage signal or vice versa, however, in that case it should be properly named such as “modulated DC voltage” for clarity. Since Applicant’s disclosure deals with all three different types of power supply DC, AC and modulated DC voltages, they should be appropriately named and referenced for clear written description. Therefore, Examiner believes Applicant’s above argument is not persuasive. It is also noted that Applicant’s response states “claims as amended are clear and definite”, but submitted claims with the response are original, not amended version.
As to applicant(s) argument of [2] “Applicant is unable to determine what mapping is intended since FIGs. 1 and 2 cannot be combined. Although there is no requirement that all mappings derive from the same figure, it is also not allowable to combine features from different figures without a clear and logical connection between the mapped features.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regan’s Figs. 1 and 2 has clear and logical connection of a single embodiment as described by Regan in para. 20 - “FIG. 2 is a system block diagram of an embodiment of the power supply consistent with the invention for use with the electrostatic chuck in FIG. 1”. As best understood, Fig. 2 of Regan illustrates components of electrostatic power supply 30 to be used with DC electrostatic chuck 10 of Fig. 1. Hence, there is no additional inventive step for combination needed between them. Therefore, Examiner believes Applicant’s above argument is not persuasive.
As to applicant(s) argument of [3] “Regan fails to teach or suggest the specific limitations that “wherein the AC signal is inverted to a first one or more of the multiple outputs and then inverted to a second one or more of the multiple outputs” (Claim 1) and “inverting the low AC voltage to each of the outputs at different times” (Claim 7). The sequential inversion process suggested in claims 1 and 7, enables taking capacitance measurements with greater sensitivity for each inverted channel in sequence. Regan’s amplifiers are neither inverting nor operated sequentially.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regan teaches outputting opposite poles such as inverting and non-inverting ac ripple output signals and then buffer amplify them for several more outputs as evidenced in figs. 4, 8 and para. 51 – “in FIG. 8, the outputs from the poles OUTPUT A 140 (also shown in FIG. 4) and OUTPUT B 142 from the power supply are sent to an amplifying circuit 144. The amplifier circuit 144 amplifies the signals from the opposite poles, buffers and then sums the signals to provide a larger signal to the remainder of the ripple detection circuitry 44, which produces several outputs.” It is also common knowledge in the art to have amplifiers having inverting or non-inverting type output. Regarding claim 7, Regan teaches in figs. 6-7 ripple voltages output for chucked substrate at one time and no substrate at another time. Therefore, Examiner believes Regan teaches said limitation(s).
Based on the arguments presented above, the Examiner strongly believes Regan alone or in combination with others meets the current limitations for Claim(s) 1-19.
For further details see the rejections/objections for Claim(s) 1-19 herein.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites a phrase “bow_based” in the last line. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “bow based” to restore clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, a limitation "the DC voltages have a frequency up to 100 Hz" renders the claim indefinite because ordinary definition of a DC voltage is a one-directional flow of electrical charge thus lacking clarity of a frequency which is typically associated with AC signals in electronics. For examination, Examiner interprets as “the DC voltages are associated with an AC signal having a frequency up to 100 Hz”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 18, a limitation "DC signal has a frequency up to 100 Hz" renders the claim indefinite because ordinary definition of a DC signal is a one-directional flow of electrical charge thus lacking clarity of a frequency which is typically associated with AC signals in electronics. For examination, Examiner interprets as “DC signal is associated with an AC signal having a frequency up to 100 Hz”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Regan et al. (US 20100182036; hereinafter Regan).
Regarding claim 1, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 a power supply, comprising:
multiple outputs (OUTPUT 140A, 142B, @ 42, 50, 52; figs 4, 8);
one or more power sources (DC 20; fig. 1) configured to generate DC voltages at the multiple outputs for chucking forces (chuck 10);
a signal injector (signal generator 80/34,26,40; fig. 2) for each of the multiple outputs (para. 39 - AC/DC switch) and configured to generate an AC signal (@80) for capacitance sensing (para. 49 - output current will rise proportionately in response to a capacitance change when the substrate 14 is clamped. This current may then be used to determine the presence or absence of a substrate 14 on the AC electrostatic chuck); and
a current monitor (para. 50 - The magnitude of the ripple voltage or current may also be monitored during the manufacturing process and may assist in detecting substrate slip on the chuck…magnitudes of the ripple voltages and currents may also be used to compare chucking quality from substrate to substrate) for each one of the multiple outputs configured to determine capacitances in a multi-segmented electrostatic chuck (para. 37 - electrostatic chuck 10 includes interdigitated electrodes 16, 18 and the dielectric 12) by measuring current from a corresponding one of the signal injectors (para. 35 - in AC mode, a change in an output current ripple may be used to detect the presence of the substrate on the chuck),
wherein the AC signal is inverted to a first one or more of the multiple outputs and then inverted to a second one or more of the multiple outputs (inverting amplifiers @86, 88, 90/36, 92, 94; figs. 2,4,8).
Regarding claim 2, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the power supply of claim 1, wherein there are three or more of the multiple outputs (para. 51 - several outputs; figs. 1,4,9).
Regarding claim 3, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the power supply of claim 2, wherein there are an even number of outputs and wherein the AC signal is inverted to two of the multiple outputs (OUTPUT 140A, 142B; figs 4, 8) configured for coupling to opposing ones of segments of the multi-segmented electrostatic chuck (para. 36 - Electrostatic chucks 10 generally have the structure of a capacitor, which includes two electrodes adjacent to a dielectric 12; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the power supply of claim 1, further comprising a controller (controller @68; fig. 3) configured to identify workpiece bow localized to one or more segments of the multi-segmented electrostatic chuck, wherein the workpiece bow is proportional to a spread of the capacitances (paras. 6,49 - clamping force is directly proportional to the dielectric constant…output current will rise proportionately in response to a capacitance change when the substrate 14 is clamped).
Regarding claim 5, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the power supply of claim 4, wherein the controller adjusts at least one of the one or more power sources to reduce the spread (para. 39 - an analog control input 46 and a digital control input 48. The analog control input 46 is an amplitude adjustment, which allows for a peak-to-peak voltage adjustment of the power supply 30).
Regarding claim 6, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the power supply of claim 1, wherein the DC voltages have a frequency up to 100 Hz (para. 43 - square wave generator 80 has an operating frequency from about zero Hz to about 1 MHz… exemplary operating frequency range may be from about 30 Hz to about 100 Hz).
Regarding claim 7, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 a method of determining workpiece bow in an electrostatic chuck system, the method comprising:
generating high voltages (DC 20; fig. 1) for chucking forces and low AC voltages (para. 47 - AC output power supply) for capacitance sensing using a power supply (para. 49 - output itself can also be used to sense whether there is a substrate 14 present on an AC electrostatic chuck in that during the rise-time of the power supply output (from the transformers 40), the output current will rise proportionately in response to a capacitance change when the substrate 14 is clamped);
driving a multi-segmented chuck (para. 37 - electrostatic chuck 10 includes interdigitated electrodes 16, 18 and the dielectric 12) using multiple outputs (OUTPUT 140A, 142B; figs 4, 8) of the power supply;
inverting the low AC voltage to each of the outputs at different times (inverting amplifiers @86, 88, 90/36; ripple voltages output for chucked substrate at one time and no substrate at another time in figs. 2,6-7);
for each inverted signal, measuring a corresponding current (para. 35 - in AC mode, a change in an output current ripple may be used to detect the presence of the substrate on the chuck); and
determining workpiece bow based upon the measured currents for the outputs (para. 50 - magnitude of the ripple voltage or current may also be monitored during the manufacturing process and may assist in detecting substrate slip on the chuck.).
Regarding claim 8, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the method of claim 7, wherein there are three or more outputs (para. 51 - several outputs; fig. 9) of the power supply and a corresponding number of segments (para. 36 - interdigitated electrodes; fig. 1) in the multi-segmented chuck.
Regarding claim 9, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the method of claim 8, wherein there are an even number of outputs (2; figs. 1,8) of the power supply and an even number of segments (2) in the multi-segmented chuck.
Regarding claim 10, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the method of claim 7, further comprising adjusting one or more of the high voltages to reduce a spread of the measured currents for the outputs (para. 43 - the magnitude of ripple current or ripple voltage that is used for determining the presence or absence of a substrate 14 decreases as frequency increases).
Regarding claim 11, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the method of claim 7, wherein the high voltages have a frequency up to 100 Hz (para. 43 - square wave generator 80 has an operating frequency from about zero Hz to about 1 MHz… exemplary operating frequency range may be from about 30 Hz to about 100 Hz).
Regarding claim 12, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the method of Claim 7, wherein the determining is based on a spread of the measured currents for the outputs (para. 39 - an analog control input 46 and a digital control input 48. The analog control input 46 is an amplitude adjustment, which allows for a peak-to-peak voltage adjustment of the power supply 30).
Regarding claim 13, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 a non-transitory tangible processor readable medium (para. 12 - processing system may include an electrostatic chuck and a power supply), comprising instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
a. cause generation of a DC signal (@20,@98; figs. 1,4) modulated with a AC signal (@80; fig. 2; para. 9 - a power supply for an electrostatic chuck that can provide AC power to an AC chuck without the concern of the peak-to-peak voltage and be able to detect the presence of a substrate on either an AC or a DC chuck);
b. drive a multi-segmented chuck (para. 37 - electrostatic chuck 10 includes interdigitated electrodes 16, 18 and the dielectric 12) with the DC signal modulated with the AC signal (para. 49 - In DC mode, a power supply output ripple will be present; figs. 1,4);
c. invert the AC signal to a first segment of the multi-segmented chuck (inverting amplifiers @86, 88, 90/36, 92, 94; figs. 2,4);
d. sense a first chuck-to-workpiece capacitance by measuring a first AC current to the first segment seeing the inverted AC signal (para. 49 - output current will rise proportionately in response to a capacitance change when the substrate 14 is clamped. This current may then be used to determine the presence or absence of a substrate 14 on the AC electrostatic chuck);
e. invert the AC signal to a second segment (OUTPUT 142B; figs 4, 8) of the multi-segmented chuck (para. 37 - electrostatic chuck 10 includes interdigitated electrodes 16, 18 and the dielectric 12);
f. sense a second chuck-to-workpiece capacitance by measuring a second AC current to the second segment seeing the inverted AC signal (para. 49,50 - output current will rise proportionately in response to a capacitance change when the substrate 14 is clamped…Once a substrate 14 has been clamped, output ripple falls due to the increase in capacitance created by the substrate-plus-chuck interface); and
e. determine workpiece bow based on the first and second chuck-to-workpiece capacitances (para. 50 - The magnitude of the ripple voltage or current may also be monitored during the manufacturing process and may assist in detecting substrate slip on the chuck…magnitudes of the ripple voltages and currents may also be used to compare chucking quality from substrate to substrate).
Regarding claim 14, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the non-transitory tangible processor readable medium of claim 13, wherein the multi-segmented chuck has three or more segments (para. 36 - Electrostatic chucks 10 generally have the structure of a capacitor, which includes two electrodes adjacent to a dielectric 12; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the non-transitory tangible processor readable medium of claim 13, wherein determining the workpiece bow is based on a spread between three or more chuck-to-workpiece capacitances (paras. 6,49 - clamping force is directly proportional to the dielectric constant…output current will rise proportionately in response to a capacitance change when the substrate 14 is clamped) and wherein the multi-segmented chuck has at least three segments (para. 36 - interdigitated electrodes; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the non-transitory tangible processor readable medium of claim 16, wherein the multi-segmented chuck (10) has an even number of segments (16, 18; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the non-transitory tangible processor readable medium of claim 13, wherein the high voltage DC signal has a frequency up to 100 Hz (para. 43 - square wave generator 80 has an operating frequency from about zero Hz to about 1 MHz… exemplary operating frequency range may be from about 30 Hz to about 100 Hz).
Regarding claim 19, Regan discloses in figure(s) 1-12 the non-transitory tangible processor readable medium of claim 13, wherein the workpiece bow is proportional to a spread of the first and second chuck-to-workpiece capacitances (paras. 36 - the electrostatic chuck 10 would be a series connection of two capacitors).
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 of this title, 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) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regan in view of BOURGARIT et al. (FR 3002082).
Regarding claim 15, Regan teaches in figure(s) 1-12 the non-transitory tangible processor readable medium of claim 13,
Regan does not teach explicitly wherein the multi-segmented chuck is a hexapolar chuck.
However, BOURGARIT teaches in figure(s) 1-27 wherein the multi-segmented chuck is a hexapolar chuck (a hexapolar electrostatic mandrel; fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Regan by having wherein the multi-segmented chuck is a hexapolar chuck as taught by BOURGARIT in order to provide a well-known chuck structure as evidenced by "a temperature-controlled wafer support device, or chuck, equipped with a thermal coupling gas distribution system… sealing layer detachably and durably secures the ceramic plates for sealing the gas distribution network" (abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JUDY NGUYEN can be reached on 571-272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858