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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species J in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant identifies claims 1 and 6-11, 13, 17 and 19 as encompassing species J. However, the Examiner notes that claim 13 is dependent on non-elected claim 12, claim 17 is dependent on non-elected claim 16, and claim 19 is dependent on non-elected claim 18. As a result, claims 13, 17 and 19 are also considered withdrawn.
As such claims 2-5, 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/12/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
gas filling unit in claim 1, interpreted to an empty space between the substrate and the electrostatic chuck [0023].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 recites the limitation "a second lift pin" in claim 1, but there is no first lift pin to associate with in Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 9 should be dependent on claim 7, and for the purposes of examining based on merits will be examined as such.
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 (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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2020/0105568 to Pilgrim.
In regards to Claim 1, Pilgrim teaches plasma processing equipment Fig. 1-4 comprising: an electrostatic chuck 101 on which a substrate 110 is provided; a gas filling unit (empty space 118) provided between the substrate and the electrostatic chuck; a gas supply unit (gas inlet 200/102) extending through the electrostatic chuck and connected to the gas filling unit, the gas supply unit comprising a plurality of first nonconductive balls (alumina balls 120 [0038]); and a focus ring 406 provided along an edge of the electrostatic chuck [0024-0075].
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.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2020/0105568 to Pilgrim in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0013063 to Tamura.
The teachings of Pilgrim are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 6, Pilgrim does not expressly teach a gas exhaust unit extending through the electrostatic chuck and connected to the gas filling unit.
Tamura teaches a substrate stage 5 Fig. 2 which has multiple lines for supplying heat transfer gas 13a, 14a to a gap G between the substrate and the electrostatic chuck, the lines being connected to a gas supply/source 11 but also to a gas exhaust pump 12 through a valve system such that the vertical lines can be used for either supplying the heat transfer gas or exhausting the heat transfer gas [0018-0044]. By controlling the heat transfer gas, cooling efficiency and distribution of an etching rate on the surface of the substrate can be controlled [0025].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Pilgrim, by making the gas supply unit also connected to a vacuum exhaust pump, as per the teachings of Tamura. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to improve cooling efficiency and control of distribution of an etching rate on the surface of the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would thus have gas supply units and gas exhaust units extending through the electrostatic chuck and connected to the gas filling unit.
In regards to Claim 11, Pilgrim teaches plasma processing equipment Fig. 1-4 comprising: an electrostatic chuck 101 on which a substrate 110 is provided; a gas filling unit (empty space 118) provided above the electrostatic chuck and configured to provide a gas pressure (heat transfer gas) to a lower side of the substrate; a gas supply unit (gas inlet 200/102) extending through the electrostatic chuck and connected to the gas filling unit and configured to supply a gas to the gas filling unit, the gas supply unit comprising a plurality of first nonconductive balls (alumina balls 120 [0038]); and a focus ring 406 provided along an edge of the electrostatic chuck [0024-0075].
Pilgrim does not expressly teach a gas exhaust unit connected to the gas filling unit and configured to discharge the gas supplied from the gas supply unit to the gas filling unit.
Tamura teaches a substrate stage 5 Fig. 2 which has multiple lines for supplying heat transfer gas 13a, 14a to a gap G between the substrate and the electrostatic chuck, the lines being connected to a gas supply/source 11 but also to a gas exhaust pump 12 through a valve system such that the vertical lines can be used for either supplying the heat transfer gas or exhausting the heat transfer gas [0018-0044]. By controlling the heat transfer gas, cooling efficiency and distribution of an etching rate on the surface of the substrate can be controlled [0025].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Pilgrim, by making the gas supply unit also connected to a vacuum exhaust pump, as per the teachings of Tamura. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to improve cooling efficiency and control of distribution of an etching rate on the surface of the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would thus have gas supply units and gas exhaust units extending through the electrostatic chuck and configured to discharge the gas supplied from the gas supply unit to the gas filling unit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2020/0105568 to Pilgrim in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0098238 to Hayashi.
The teachings of Pilgrim are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 7, Pilgrim does not expressly teach a first lift pin penetrating the focus ring and the edge of the electrostatic chuck, and configured to adjust a height of the focus ring.
Hayashi teaches a plasma processing equipment Fig. 1-5 with an electrostatic chuck 20 and a focus ring 222 that is lifted up/a height is adjusted by a first lift pin 722 that goes through hole 162h and penetrates the focus/edge ring 222 in hole 221h [0014-0094]. Hayashi also gas is pushed through this hole to allow movement for the lift pin [0024].
Hayashi further teaches that the adjustment of the focus/edge ring 222 is adjusted so that the characteristics of plasma processing performed on the edge of the substrate can be adjusted [0074].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Pilgrim, with the teachings of Hayashi and its lift pins and gas hole, to the edge ring of Pilgrim. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to adjust the characteristics of plasma processing performed on the edge of the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2020/0105568 to Pilgrim in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0098238 to Hayashi, as applied to Claim 7 above, and in further view of Korean Application No. KR 10-2021-0191337 (filed 06/23/2022, United States Patent Application No. 2023/0207288 to Lee et al relied upon as the English language equivalent.)
The teachings of Pilgrim in view of Hayashi are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 8, Pilgrim in view of Hayashi teach the first lift pin is provided inside a first lift pin hole penetrating the focus ring and the edge of the electrostatic chuck, as per the rejection of Claim 7 above, but does not expressly teach the first lift pin hole comprises a plurality of second nonconductive balls.
Lee teaches that lift pin holes can have porous plugs 646 Fig. 5, 6 for the gas lines of the lift pin holes and thus also in the holes as it opens into the holes [0041-0115], the porous plugs giving the added benefit of preventing arcing in the lift pin hole [0114-0117].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Pilgrim in view of Hayashi by adding the porous plug of Lee. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing arcing in the lift pin hole.
Pilgrim in view of Hayashi and Lee do not expressly teach that said porous plug is made out of non-conductive balls.
However, Pilgrim teaches a porous plug can be substituted with nonconductive balls, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and as shown in Fig. 1B and Fig. 2, 5A-5C.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a porous plugs analogous to that of Pilgrim in view of Hayashi and Lee out of non-conductive balls, as taught by Pilgrim, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 8, as the balls in the lift pin holes would be considered a second set of nonconductive balls.
In regards to Claim 9, Pilgrim in view of Hayashi does not expressly teach a second lift pin provided below the substrate and penetrating the electrostatic chuck, the second lift pin being configured to adjust a height of the substrate.
Lee teaches lift pins 671 Fig. 2 for a substrate support to elevate the substrate [0122] or adjust a height of the substrate. Lee teaches that lift pin holes can have porous plugs 646 Fig. 5, 6 for the gas lines of the lift pin holes and thus also in the holes as it opens into the holes [0041-0115], the porous plugs giving the added benefit of preventing arcing in the lift pin hole [0114-0117].
As it is known to provide lift pins with gas holes in an electrostatic chuck, as taught by Lee, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have modified Pilgrim in view of Hayashi as taught by Lee to include lift pins in gas filled holes with a porous plug. One would be motivated to do so in order to adjust the height of the substrate or elevate the substrate as a functionality. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, with a second lift pin provided below the substrate and penetrating the electrostatic chuck, the second lift pin being configured to adjust a height of the substrate.
In regards to Claim 10, Pilgrim in view of Hayashi and Lee teach the second lift pin is provided in a second lift pin hole penetrating the electrostatic chuck but does not expressly teach wherein the second lift pin hole comprises a plurality of third nonconductive balls.
However, Pilgrim teaches a porous plug can be substituted with nonconductive balls, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and as shown in Fig. 1B and Fig. 2, 5A-5C.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a porous plugs analogous to that of Pilgrim in view of Hayashi and Lee out of non-conductive balls, as taught by Pilgrim, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 10, as the balls in the lift pin holes would be considered a second set of nonconductive balls.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 2004/0003898 which teaches balls in the gas line.
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
Prosecution Insights