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 .
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.
Such limitations are: “means for electrically connecting the surface of the elastic and thermo-conductive layer…to ground potential” in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20130120897 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 111769040 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a holding device arrangement, comprising a substrate holding device (electrostatic chuck, fig. 8, [0042) with an elastic and thermo-conductive layer (polymer protrusions 801 on charge control layer 802, [0042]; polymer is soft, [0006], and performs heat conduction, [0004]) for holding a substrate and means (metal layer 813) for electrically connecting the surface of the elastic and thermo-conductive layer to ground potential (bleeding charge to ground [0042]).
Lin does not state that the system is for use in an implantation process of an piezoelectric substrate, or that the layer is for receiving a piezoelectric substrate.
Zhang teaches an ion implantation system having an electrostatic chuck for receiving a piezoelectric substrate (p. 3 paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the substrate holder of Lin in a system designed to implant ions in a piezoelectric substrate, such as the system of Zhang, as the substrate holder of Lin is designed for a microelectronics production system ([0003]) having a beam ([0027]) such as an ion implanter and can implicitly hold any desired substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches that the elastic and thermo-conductive layer comprises a polymer layer (polymer protrusions, [0009]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lin teaches that the means for electrically connecting comprises at least on electrically conductive element embedded in the elastic and thermo-conductive layer to render the elastic and thermo-conductive layer electrically conductive (polymer may be a blend of a carbon nanotube and a polymer, or a conductive nanoparticle doped polymer, [0010]).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Lin teaches that the electrically conductive element is carbon nanotubes ([0010]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lin teaches that the means for electrically connecting comprises at least one pin (ground pin, [0032]) extending through the elastic and thermo-conductive layer to the substrate holding device (pin passage 418 extends through top of substrate holder, fig. 4).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lin teaches that the means for electrically connecting comprises a conductive layer (conductive path 952, [0043]), provided over the elastic and thermo-conductive layer and extending laterally at least partially over the side surface of the elastic and thermo-conductive layer to be in direct contact with the surface of the substrate holding device (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang (as modified by Lin) teaches an ion implanter comprising a holding device arrangement according to claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Lin does not teach that the conductive layer comprises a metallic layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the conductive layer of Lin to be a metallic layer as a matter of selecting a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended use (i.e. conductors are often made of metal) (MPEP 2144.07 [R-01.2024]).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Zhang and in further view of Parkhe (20160148828 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lin and Zhang teach all the limitations of claims 5 and 15 as described above. Lin and Zhang do not teach that the at least one metallic pin rests on a spring element provided in the substrate holding device.
Parkhe teaches a grounding pin (146, [0054]) for an electrostatic chuck which rests on a spring element (coil spring 150) provided in the substrate holding device (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current claims to modify the system of Lin to have the spring loaded grounding pin of Parkhe, in order to provide a spring force for ensuring contact between the pin and the substrate for proper grounding as described by Parkhe.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Parkhe teaches that, in the absence of a substrate, the metallic pins protrude at least partially beyond the surface of the electrostatic chuck (fig. 9; the surface comprises the elastic and thermo-conductive layer in the combination with Lin, above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches a method of implantation of a piezoelectric substrate (p. 3 paragraph 1), comprising the steps of:
Providing a piezoelectric substrate (piezoelectric wafer 5) on a holding device (electrostatic chuck, p. 3 paragraph 1), and
Implanting atomic species into the piezoelectric substrate (H ion implantation, line 17).
Zhang does not teach that the holding device arrangement connects the substrate to ground potential and comprises a substrate holding device with an elastic and thermo-conductive layer for receiving the piezoelectric substrate, and means for electrically connecting the surface of the elastic and thermo-conductive layer for receiving the piezoelectric substrate to ground potential.
Lin teaches a holding device arrangement connecting a substrate to ground potential (by ground pins, [0032], fig. 4) comprising a substrate holding device (electrostatic chuck, fig. 8, [0042) with an elastic and thermo-conductive layer (polymer protrusions 801 on charge control layer 802, [0042]; polymer is soft, [0006], and performs heat conduction, [0004]) for holding a substrate and means (metal layer 813) for electrically connecting the surface of the elastic and thermo-conductive layer to ground potential (bleeding charge to ground [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing data of the invention to use the substrate holder of Lin in the ion implantation method of Zhang, as the substrate holder of Lin is designed for a microelectronics production system ([0003]) having a beam ([0027]) such as an ion implanter and can implicitly hold any desired substrate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Zhang and in further view of Henley (US 6,458,723 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Lin and Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lin and Zhang do not teach that the polymer is an elastomer.
Henley teaches an ion implantation substrate holder with an elastomer top layer (75, col. 7 lines 38-40).
t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the polymer layer of Lin to be an elastomer layer as a matter of selecting a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for an intended use (MPEP 2144.07 [R-01.2024]). In this case Henley teaches that an elastomer layer allows a shock absorbing layer with heat resistance characteristics (col. 7 lines 39-41) and provides efficient heat dissipation in an ion implantation process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights