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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments field 06 Feb 2026.
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 12, 13, 16 are amended. Claims 18-20 are canceled.
Drawings
Drawing objections are withdrawn in light of amendments to the drawings and the specification filed 06 Feb 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets claim limitation “heating line” (claim 1, 12, 13, 14) as comprising a heater/heating element and heater (claim 1, 12, 14) as comprising a power source configured to adjust the power supplied to the heating line in light of original Specification para. [0040] and [0055].
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objection discussed in the non-final rejection of 17 Nov 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 06 Feb 2026.
Applicant’s amendments filed 06 Feb 2026 necessitated new claim objection(s) discussed below.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first temperature; and; and” should read as “the first temperature; .
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Claim 13 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 06 Feb 2026.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniapura et al. (US 2018/0053628 A1 hereinafter “Vaniapura”) in view of Mori et al. (US 2017/0051406 A1 hereinafter “Mori”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Vaniapura teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising plasma processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2 and 5, para. [0060],[0070]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising processing chamber 110 and plasma chamber 120, Fig. 2 and 5, para. [0060], [0070]) comprising a first space (comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5) and a second space (comprising plasma chamber interior 125, Fig. 2 and 5, para. [0061], [0071]);
a substrate support (comprising substrate holder or pedestal 112, Fig. 2 and 5) in the first space (comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5) and configured to support a substrate (comprising 114, Fig. 2 and 5)(para. [0060], [0070]);
a plasma source (comprising induction coil 130, Fig. 2 and 5) configured to generate plasma in the second space (comprising 125, Fig. 2 and 5) (para. [0061],[0071]);
an ion blocker (comprising separation grid 50, Fig. 1; separation grid 200, Fig. 2 and 5, para.[0005], [0030], [0066], [0076]) between the second space (comprising 125, Fig. 2 and 5) and the first space (comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5), the ion blocker comprising through-holes (comprising 207, Fig. 3) configured to:
pass therethrough radicals (i.e. neutral species) of the plasma from the second space (comprising 125, Fig. 2 and 5) to the first space(comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5); and provide the radicals (i.e. neutral species) to the substrate (comprising 114, Fig. 2 and 5) (para. [0005],[0030],[0066], [0076]); and
a temperature controller (comprising temperature control system 205, Fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of heaters (comprising power source 210, Fig. 2; para. [0064],[0069]) connected to the ion blocker (comprising 200, Fig. 2 -4) and wherein the ion blocker (comprising 200, Fig. 2-4) comprises a plurality of regions (comprising Z1 and Z2, Fig. 4) wherein each region comprises a heating line (comprising 230 and 220, Fig. 4, para. [0067]) wherein the heating lines (comprising 230 and 220, Fig. 4) of the plurality of regions are respectively connected to the plurality of the heaters (comprising power source (comprising 210, Fig. 2, para. [0064], [0069]), wherein the controller (comprising 300, Fig. 2) is configured to control the output of the plurality of heaters (comprising 210, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0064], [0069]).
Vaniapura does not explicitly teach one or more boundary regions each comprising a cooling flow path between at least two of the plurality of regions and respectively connected to the one or more chillers, wherein the one or more boundary regions are disposed at locations that overlap with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction; the controller is configured to control output of the one or more chillers.
However, Vaniapura teaches an embodiment (Fig. 5) comprising one or more chillers (comprising fluid source 240, Fig. 5), and a controller (comprising controller 300, Fig. 5) configured to control output of the one or more chillers (para. [0074]), wherein the ion blocker (comprising 200, Fig. 2, 5, 6, 7) further comprises: a plurality of regions (comprising zones Z1 and Z2, Fig. 7, para. [0077]), including a cooling flow path (comprising 250 and 260, Fig. 7, para. [0077]), wherein a temperature of each of the plurality of regions is independently controlled (para. [0077]).
Additionally, Mori teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising 10, Fig. 1, para. [0046]) including a temperature-controlled component (comprising susceptor 15, Fig. 1, 12, 13) wherein the temperature-controlled component includes one or more boundary regions (comprising region where cooling device 210 is located, Fig. 12; comprising region where 91 and 16A are located, Fig. 13) each comprising a cooling flow path (comprising cooling device 210, Fig. 12, para. [0104]; comprising 91 and 92, Fig. 13 and 14) between at least two of the plurality of regions (comprising region 16a and 16b, Fig. 12; comprising zone 1 and zone 2, Fig. 13) (para. [0104],[0106]-[0118]). Mori teaches that such a configuration enables inhibiting heat conduction/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (para. [0104], [0118]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure one or more boundary regions in the ion blocker wherein each boundary region comprises a cooling flow path between at least two of the plurality of regions and respectively connected to the one or more chillers, wherein the controller is configured to control output of the one or more chillers, wherein the one or more boundary regions are disposed at locations that overlap with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction because Vaniapura already teaches/suggests the use of a cooling flow path in the ion blocker and associated chiller controlled by the controller and because Mori teaches that such a configuration of a cooling flow path between at least two of the plurality of regions enables inhibiting heat conduction/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (para. [0104],[0118]).
Further regarding limitation “wherein the one or more boundary regions are disposed at locations that overlap with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction” since Vaniapura teaches that the through-holes (207 represented by dotted lines, Fig. 3) extend through the entire thickness of the ion blocker and the regions are shown as being a central region Z1 and a peripheral region Z2 which are horizontally disposed with respect to one another, when modifying Vaniapura with the teachings of Mori above to including a boundary region comprising a cooling flow path, wherein the cooling flow path would surround the central region Z1 in an annular configuration, the limitation “wherein the one or more boundary regions are disposed at locations that overlap with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction” would obviously and necessarily be met. See annotated Fig. 4 of Vaniapura below.
PNG
media_image1.png
651
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Vaniapura further teaches wherein the plurality of regions are electrically connected to each other (as understood from the figures the ion blocker appears to be made of a single piece of material with no intentional isolating material. Additionally, para. [0066] and [0076] discloses that the ion blocker 200 comprises a conductive material).
Regarding claim 3, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 2 as applied above and Vaniapura further teaches wherein the plurality of regions are electrically grounded (para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Vaniapura further teaches wherein the temperature controller (comprising controller 300, Fig. 2) is configured to control a first region (comprising Z1, Fig. 4) of the plurality of regions controlled to have a first temperature (para. [0067], [0069]), wherein a second region (comprising Z2, Fig. 4) of the plurality of regions that is adjacent to the first region is controlled to have a temperature that is different from the first temperature (para [0044], [0064], [0067],[0069], [0077]).
Vaniapura in view of Mori as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach the temperature controller is configured to control the boundary region of the one or more boundary regions that is between the first region and the second region to have a third temperature that is lowest of the first temperature and the second temperature.
However, Vaniapura teaches the controller (comprising controller 300, Fig. 5) configured to control output of the one or more chillers to control the temperature of the cooling flow path (para. [0074]). Vaniapura as discussed above teaches controlling a first region (comprising Z1, Fig. 4) of the plurality of regions controlled to have a first temperature (para. [0067], [0069]), wherein a second region (comprising Z2, Fig. 4) of the plurality of regions that is adjacent to the first region is controlled to have a temperature that is different from the first temperature (para [0044], [0064], [0067],[0069], [0077]).
Additionally, Mori teaches the one or more boundary regions (comprising region where cooling device 210 is located, Fig. 12; comprising region where 91 and 16A are located, Fig. 13) each comprising a cooling flow path (comprising cooling device 210, Fig. 12, para. [0104]; comprising 91 and 92, Fig. 13 and 14) between at least two of the plurality of regions (comprising region 16a and 16b, Fig. 12; comprising zone 1 and zone 2, Fig. 13) inhibiting heat conduction/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (para. [0104],[0106]- [0118]). Mori teaches that the cooling medium is set to 20ºC (para. [0106]) and that the temperature set for the temperature-controlled component is 75 to 100ºC and that such a configuration enables providing a clear temperature difference between the first region (i.e. inner region) and the second region (i.e. outer region) (para. [0119]-[0121]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to control the cooling flow path that comprises the boundary between the first region and the second region to have a third temperature which is lowest of the first temperature (i.e. temperature of the first region) and the second temperature (i.e. temperature of the second region) because Vaniapura already teaches a controller configured to control the temperature of the cooling medium output by the chillers and additionally teaches controlling the temperature of the ion blocker to have different temperatures at the first region and the second region and because Mori teaches that providing a lowest third temperature of the cooling medium in the cooling path defining the boundary region between the first region and the second region of a temperature-controlled component would enable suitable thermal insulation between the first and second insulation region to provide a definite temperature difference between the first region and the second region. (Mori: para. [0104],[0119]-[0121]).
Regarding claim 7, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Vaniapura further teaches wherein the temperature controller (comprising temperature control system 205, Fig. 2) further comprises a plurality of temperature sensors (comprising 310, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0065], [0069]) respectively configured to detect temperatures of the plurality of regions (para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 7 as applied above and Vaniapura further teaches wherein the plurality of temperature sensors (comprising 310, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0065], [0069]) are configured to measure respective temperatures of the plurality of regions (para. [0069]), wherein the temperature controller is configured to adjust the output of the plurality of the heaters and the output of the one or more chillers based on the temperatures of the plurality of regions respectively measured by the plurality of temperature sensors (para. [0040],[0044]-[0047],[0069]).
Regarding claim 9, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Vaniapura further teaches wherein the ion blocker comprises a metal material (para. [0066], [0076] disclose Al).
Regarding claim 11, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Vaniapura further teaches wherein the through-holes have a same diameter, and wherein the through-holes are uniformly arranged at a same interval between each other (as understood from the Fig. 1-7 and para. [0033]).
Additionally/alternatively, Vaniapura further teaches that the size of the through-holes is a result-effective variable which affects the transparency of the ion blocker (i.e. filtering/blocking ability) for charged and neutral particles (para. [0030]) and the arrangement/pattern/density of the through-holes is also a result-effective variable that affects the process profile across wafer in the plasma process (para. [0033]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize each of the diameter/size of the through-holes and the arrangement/spacing of the through-holes because Vaniapura teaches that the size/diameter of the through-holes is a result-effective variable which affects the filtering of charged particles (Vaniapura: para. [0030]) and the arrangement/pattern/density of the through-holes is a result-effective variable that affects the process profile across the wafer/substrate (Vaniapura: para. [0033]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would want to optimize the size/diameter of the through-holes and to optimize the density/arrangement of the through-holes in order to optimize plasma processing of the wafer/substrate.
Regarding independent claim 12, Vaniapura teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising plasma processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2 and 5, para. [0060],[0070]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising processing chamber 110 and plasma chamber 120, Fig. 2 and 5, para. [0060], [0070]) comprising a first space (comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5) and a second space (comprising plasma chamber interior 125, Fig. 2 and 5, para. [0061], [0071]);
a plasma source (comprising induction coil 130, Fig. 2 and 5) configured to generate plasma in the second space (comprising 125, Fig. 2 and 5) (para. [0061],[0071]);
a substrate support (comprising substrate holder or pedestal 112, Fig. 2 and 5) in the first space (comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5) and configured to support a substrate (comprising 114, Fig. 2 and 5)(para. [0060], [0070]); and
an ion blocker (comprising separation grid 200, Fig. 2 and 5, para. [0005], [0030], [0066], [0076]) between the second (comprising 125, Fig. 2 and 5) and the first space (comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5), the ion blocker comprising through-holes (comprising 207, Fig. 3) configured to:
pass therethrough radicals of the plasma from the second space to the first space; and
pass therethrough radicals (i.e. neutral species) of the plasma from the second space (comprising 125, Fig. 2 and 5) to the first space (comprising 110, Fig. 2 and 5); and provide the radicals (i.e. neutral species) to the substrate (comprising 114, Fig. 2 and 5) (para. [0005],[0030],[0066], [0076]);
wherein the ion blocker (comprising 200, Fig. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7) further comprises:
a first region (comprising central zone Z1, Fig. 4) comprising a first heating line (comprising heating element 230, Fig. 4) connected to a first heater (comprising power source 210, Fig. 2) (para. [0064],[0067], [0069]);
a second region (comprising peripheral zone Z2, Fig. 4) comprising a second heating line (comprising heating element 220. Fig. 4) connected to a second heater (comprising power source 210, Fig. 2) (para. [0064], [0067], [0069]); and
a first boundary region (comprising a region of the ion blocker 200 located between the central region and the peripheral region) between the first region (comprising Z1, Fig. 4) and the second region (comprising Z2, Fig. 4),
and wherein a first temperature of the first region (comprising Z1, Fig. 4) is controlled independently of a second temperature of the second region (comprising Z2, Fig. 4) (para. [0067]).
Vaniapura does not clearly and explicitly teach the first boundary region comprises a first cooling flow path connected to a first chiller, wherein the first boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction.
However, Vaniapura does teach an embodiment (Fig. 6) include a first cooling flow path (comprising cooling flow path 250, Fig. 6) connected to a first chiller (comprising fluid source 240, Fig. 5) (para. [0076]).
Additionally, Mori teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising 10, Fig. 1, para. [0046]) including a temperature-controlled component (comprising susceptor 15, Fig. 1, 12, 13) wherein the temperature-controlled component includes one or more boundary regions (comprising region where cooling device 210 is located, Fig. 12; comprising region where 91 and 16A are located, Fig. 13) each comprising a cooling flow path (comprising cooling device 210, Fig. 12, para. [0104]; comprising 91 and 92, Fig. 13 and 14) between at least two of the plurality of regions (comprising region 16a and 16b, Fig. 12; comprising zone 1 and zone 2, Fig. 13) (para. [0104],[0106]-[0118]). Mori teaches that such a configuration enables inhibiting heat conduction/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (para.[0104], [0118]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first boundary region (i.e. region between the first and second region) in the ion blocker to comprises a first cooling flow path and connected to the first chiller, wherein the first boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction because Vaniapura already teaches/suggest the use of a cooling flow path in the ion blocker and associated chiller and because Mori teaches that such a configuration/placement of the cooling flow path in the bound region enables inhibiting heat conduction/providing heat insulation between the plurality of regions (para. [0104],[0118]).
Further, regarding limitation “wherein the first boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction,” since Vaniapura teaches that the through-holes (207 represented by dotted lines, Fig. 3) extend through the entire thickness of the ion blocker and the regions are shown as being a central region Z1 and a peripheral region Z2 which are horizontally disposed with respect to one another, when modifying Vaniapura with the teachings of Mori above to including a boundary region comprising a cooling flow path, wherein the cooling flow path would surround the central region Z1 in an annular configuration, the limitation “wherein the first boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction” would obviously and necessarily be met. See annotated Fig. 4 of Vaniapura below.
PNG
media_image1.png
651
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 13 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the ion blocker further comprises: a third region outside the second region and comprising a third heating line connected to a third heater; and a second boundary region between the second region and the third region, the second boundary region comprising a second cooling flow path connected to a second chiller.
However, Vaniapura further teaches that the ion blocker (comprising 200, Fig. 2) can be divided into any number of zones/regions in any suitable fashion (para. [0068]) and already teaches providing at least one heating line (comprising 220, 230, Fig. 4, para. [0067]) in each region, wherein each heating line has a respective heater (comprising 210, Fig. 2, para. [0069]).
Additionally, Mori already teaches a cooling flow path (comprising cooling device 210, Fig. 12, para. [0104]; comprising 91 and 92, Fig. 13 and 14) between at least two of the plurality of regions (comprising region 16a and 16b, Fig. 12; comprising zone 1 and zone 2, Fig. 13) (para. [0104],[0106]-[0118]). Mori teaches that such a configuration enables inhibiting heat conduction/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (para.[0104], [0118]). Mori further teaches a configuration (Fig. 6) including a third region (comprising third portion 16c, Fig. 6) outside the second region (comprising second portion 16b, Fig. 6) and comprising a third heating line (comprising 80, Fig. 6); and a second boundary region (comprising 16B, Fig. 6) between the second region and the third region (para. [0073]-[0075]). Mori teaches such a configuration improves the degree of freedom of the temperature distribution (para. [0075]).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing an additional region, heating line, heater, boundary region, cooling flow path, and chiller would amount to duplication of each of the aforementioned parts.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the ion blocker further comprises: a third region outside the second region and comprising a third heating line connected to a third heater; and a second boundary region between the second region and the third region, the second boundary region comprising a second cooling flow path connected to a second chiller (i.e. duplication of region, heating line, heater, boundary region, cooling flow path, and chiller) because Vaniapura already teaches/suggests providing any number of regions and providing each region with a respective heating line and heater (para. [0068]-[0069]); additionally because Mori already teaches that providing a cooling flow path between a plurality of regions enables inhibiting heat conduction/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (para.[0104], [0118]) and Mori further teaches/suggests a configuration of a temperature-controlled component including a third region, a third heating line and a second boundary region as an obvious configuration which would improve degree of freedom of temperature distribution (Mori: para. [0075]); and because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing an additional region, heating line, heater, boundary region, cooling flow path, and chiller would amount to duplication of each of the aforementioned parts, wherein the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). Examiner further explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the duplication of the region, heating line, heater, boundary region, cooling flow path, and chiller would provide improved temperature control.
Regarding claim 15, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 as applied above and further teaches wherein the first region, the second region and the third region are electrically connected to each other. Examiner further explains Vaniapura further teaches wherein the plurality of regions are electrically connected to each other (as understood from the figures the ion blocker appears to be made of a single piece of material with no intentional isolating material. Additionally, para. [0066] and [0076] discloses that the ion blocker 200 comprises a conductive material). Thus, claim 15 limitations would obviously be met by the combination.
Regarding claim 16, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 12 as applied above.
Regarding limitation ”wherein the first boundary region is controlled to a third temperature that is equal to or lower than the lowest temperature of the first temperature and the second temperature” since the combination of Vaniapura in view of Mori as applied above in claim 1 teaches a cooling flow path in the first boundary region between the first region and the second region (see teachings of Mori), wherein each region includes a heating line (see teachings of Vaniapura) the resulting apparatus would obviously meet or be capable of meeting the above discussed claim 16 limitation.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniapura et al. (US 2018/0053628 A1 hereinafter “Vaniapura”) in view Mori et al. (US 2017/0051406 A1 hereinafter “Mori”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-16 and further in view of Chen (US 2022/0270861 A1).
Regarding claim 4 and 17, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of independent claim(s) 1, 12, respectively, as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the through-holes has a diameter that is equal to or smaller than twice a thickness of a plasma sheath.
However, Chen teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising plasma system 1, Fig. 1, para. [0025]) comprising an ion blocker (comprising filter device 18, Fig. 1, para. [0028]; comprising filter member 181, Fig. 2) including through-holes (Fig. 2) wherein Chen further teaches each of the through-holes has a diameter that is less than the plasma sheath thickness so that a large number of the ions from the plasma cannot pass through the ion blocker(para. [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the each of through-holes of the ion blocker to have a diameter less than the plasma sheath thickness because Chen teaches that such a configuration is a suitable diameter for filtering out ions in the plasma (Chen: para. [0040]). Thus, claim 4 and 17 limitation “each of the through-holes has a diameter that is equal to or smaller than twice a thickness of a plasma sheath” would be met when sizing each through-hole to be smaller than the plasma sheath thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Vaniapura in view of Mori and Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 5 as applied above and Chen further teaches wherein the diameter of each of the through-holes is equal to or smaller than about 1 mm (Chen: para. [0040]). Thus the combination meets claim 5 limitaitons.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniapura et al. (US 2018/0053628 A1 hereinafter “Vaniapura”) in view of Mori et al. (US 2017/0051406 A1 hereinafter “Mori”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-16 and further in view of Kalita et al. (US 2019/0304756 A1 hereinafter “Kalita”).
Regarding claim 10, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of independent claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach an etch-resistance material layer extending along inner circumferential surfaces of the through-holes of the ion blocker.
However, Kalita teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising processing chamber 300, Fig. 3, para. [0043]) comprising an ion blocker (comprising showerhead 331, Fig. 3, para. [0049]) and an etch-resistance material layer (comprising 420, Fig. 4A; comprising 510, Fig. 5) extending along inner circumferential surfaces of the through-holes of the ion blocker (para. [0056]-[0057], [0059]-[0060], [0070]-[0071]). Kalita teaches that such a configuration protects against chemical corrosion and physical erosion from plasma effluents (para. [0056]-[0057]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an etch-resistance material layer extending along inner circumferential surfaces of the through-holes of the ion blocker because Kalita teaches that such a configuration enables protecting the ion blocker against chemical corrosion and physical erosion from the plasma effluents (Kalita: para. [0056]-[0057]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniapura et al. (US 2018/0053628 A1 hereinafter “Vaniapura”) in view Mori et al. (US 2017/0051406 A1 hereinafter “Mori”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-16 above and further in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 2016/0035544 A1 hereinafter “Lubomirsky”).
Regarding claim 13, Vaniapura in view of Mori teaches all of the limitations of independent claim(s) 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first heating line, the second heating line, and the first cooling flow path form concentric circles.
However, Examiner notes that the temperature-controlled ion blocker of Vaniapura has a circular configuration (See Fig. 1 of Vaniapura).
Additionally, Mori teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising 10, Fig. 1, para. [0046]) including a circular temperature-controlled component (comprising susceptor 15, Fig. 1, 6, and 13) having a first heating line (comprising 50, Fig. 1,6, 13) and a second heating line (comprising 52, Fig. 1, 6 and 13), wherein the first and second heating line form concentric circles (para. [0053], [0073], [0091]) enabling temperature settings in consideration from center to edge of the circular temperature-controlled component (para. [0091]).
Further, Lubomirsky teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising plasma etch system 100, Fig. 1, para. [0026]) including a circular temperature-controlled component (comprising chuck assembly 142, Fig. 1, para. [0025]; comprising Fig. 6, para. [0052]-[0053]), wherein the cooling flow path (comprising coolant channel 222, Fig. 2, para. [0043]; comprising 280-1 and 280-2, Fig. 7) forms concentric circles between heated portions of the temperature-controlled component (para. [0055], [0058]). Lubomirsky teaches that such a configuration enables thermally isolating the zones/blocks by placing a cool zone between each zone/block (para. [0058]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first heating line, the second heating line, and the first cooling flow path to form concentric circles because Vaniapura teaches a circular temperature-controlled component (i.e. ion blocker, see Fig. 1 of Vaniapura), wherein Mori teaches/suggest such a configuration of heating lines enables setting/controlling the center to edge temperature of the circular temperature-controlled component (Mori: para. [0091]), and because Lubomirsky teaches/suggests that such a cooling flow path configuration enables thermally isolating adjacent regions of a circular temperature-controlled component (Lubomirsky: para. [0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further explained below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 17) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 12, Vaniapura and Mori alone or in combination fails to disclose or suggest a structure in which a boundary region is disclosed at a position overlapping with the through-holes in a horizontal direction as currently claimed in amended claim 1 and 12.
Examiner responds regarding limitation “boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction,” since Vaniapura teaches that the through-holes (207 represented by dotted lines, Fig. 3) extend through the entire thickness of the ion blocker and the regions are shown as being a central region Z1 and a peripheral region Z2 which are horizontally disposed with respect to one another, when modifying/combining Vaniapura with the teachings of Mori above to including a boundary region comprising a cooling flow path, wherein the cooling flow path would surround the central region Z1 in an annular configuration, the limitation “boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction” would obviously and necessarily be met. See annotated Fig. 4 of Vaniapura above in claim 1 and 12 rejection.
Applicant argues (remarks page 18) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Mori teaches a structure having a different purpose and effect from the technical concept of the present application and Vaniapura fails to disclose a configuration defining an independent boundary region between the heating regions or the effects resulting therefrom. The combination of Vaniapura and Mori cannot derive "a boundary region disposed at a position overlapping with through-holes in a horizontal direction" and is impermissible hindsight.
Examiner response to applicant's argument that Mori teaches a structure having a different purpose and effect from the technical concept of the present application, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, both Mori and Vaniapura teach temperature control configurations of a temperature-controlled component in a substrate processing apparatus, as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Additionally, Vaniapura teaches a temperature-controlled ion blocker, as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Vaniapura does not teach a boundary region comprising a cooling flow path. However, Mori teaches using a cooling flow path in a boundary region to enable inhibiting heat condition/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (Mori: para. [0104], [0118]). It would be obvious to provide a boundary region comprising a cooling flow path between the plurality of regions of Vaniapura such that the boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction because Vaniapura already teaches using a cooling flow path in an ion blocker and because Mori teaches that such a configuration of a cooling flow path between at least two of the plurality of regions enables inhibiting heat conduction/providing thermal insulation between the plurality of regions (para. [0104],[0118]). Further, regarding limitation “boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction,” since Vaniapura teaches that the through-holes (207 represented by dotted lines, Fig. 3) extend through the entire thickness of the ion blocker and the regions are shown as being a central region Z1 and a peripheral region Z2 which are horizontally disposed with respect to one another, when modifying Vaniapura with the teachings of Mori above to including a boundary region comprising a cooling flow path, wherein the cooling flow path would surround the central region Z1 in an annular configuration, the limitation “boundary region is disposed at a location that overlaps with the through-holes of the ion blocker in a horizontal direction” would obviously and necessarily be met. See annotated Fig. 4 of Vaniapura in claim 1 and 12 rejection above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 19-22) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 6, the description of Mori para. [0104]-[0118] does not indicate the cooling line is controlled so that the boundary region has a temperature that matches the temperature of an adjacent region that has a lowest temperature of both regions. Thus, Mori and Vaniapura alone or in combination fail to teach the limitations of amended claim 6.
Examiner responds “the cooling line is controlled so that the boundary region has a temperature that matches the temperature of an adjacent region that has a lowest temperature of both regions” is not commensurate with the claims. Claim 6 requires “control a boundary region of the one or more boundary regions that is between the first region and the second region to have a third temperature that is lowest of the first temperature and the second temperature” wherein the boundary region comprises the cooling flow path (as recited in claim 1). Additionally, Vaniapura teaches controlling the first region and the second region of the ion blocker to be at different temperatures (para. [0069]). Further, Mori teaches/suggests controlling the cooling medium to be 20ºC (para. [0106]] and the first region and the second region of the temperature-controlled component is controlled to be 75 to 100ºC and that such a configuration enables providing a clear temperature difference between the first region (i.e. inner region) and the second region (i.e. outer region) (para. [0119]-[0121]). It would be obvious to configure the controller to control the cooling flow path that comprises the boundary between the first region and the second region to have a third temperature which is lowest of the first temperature (i.e. temperature of the first region) and the second temperature (i.e. temperature of the second region) because Vaniapura already teaches a controller configured to control the temperature of the cooling medium output by the chillers and additionally teaches controlling the temperature of the ion blocker to have different temperatures at the first region and the second region and because Mori teaches that providing a lowest third temperature of the cooling medium in the cooling path defining the boundary region between the first region and the second region of a temperature-controlled component would enable suitable thermal insulation between the first and second insulation region to provide a definite temperature difference between the first region and the second region. (Mori: para. [0104],[0119]-[0121]).
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 12 are rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-17 are also rejected, as detailed above.
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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights