CTNF 18/586,860 CTNF 87926 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-05-05 Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 3-4, 6 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “a” should be before “substrate” so that the text reads “electrode for a substrate disposed above…” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “a” should be before “ring” so that the text reads “for a ring disposed above…” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claims 3-4, 6, and 16-17 refer to a “substrate disposed above the first electrode”. This limitation is interpreted as being directed to the intended use (i.e. it is intended for a substrate to be disposed above the first electrode). It is noted that the instant specification demonstrates a substrate above the first electrode (see “W” Fig 6). However, in the art of plasma processing apparatuses and substrate supports, the substrate is understood to be the article worked upon by the apparatus and therefore is not a structure of the substrate support or plasma processing apparatus. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7-10 and 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 7 and 18, the claim recites in line 2 of the claim “for [a] ring disposed above the second electrode”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the claim is being directed to an intended use of the electrostatic electrode (i.e. the electrostatic electrode is intended to be used to clamp a ring disposed above it) or if the claim is intending to also require a ring disposed above the electrostatic electrode of the second dielectric. The distinction is particularly critical because if the limitation is directed to an intended use, then the claim limitation may be met by an electrostatic electrode that is intended to be used for a different structure such as the outer periphery of a wafer substrate but is capable of being used for an edge ring (e.g. an outer peripheral electrostatic electrode) without specifically requiring an edge ring to be clamped or present. Also note that the ring is different from other claims (e.g. 3-4, 6, and 16-17) that refer to a substrate because the ring may be a structure of the substrate support or plasma processing apparatus and is not merely an article worked upon. The instant specification demonstrates a ring above the electrostatic electrode of the second dielectric (see ring 120 of Fig 6); however the claim does not explicitly claim the ring as a structure of the substrate support. Therefore, for purpose of examination on the merits, the instant claim limitation will be interpreted inclusive of being directed to an intended use of the electrostatic electrode (i.e. the electrostatic electrode is intended to be used to clamp a ring disposed above it but may be clamping a different structure or not be operated to clamp a structure). Applicant is kindly requested to confirm the applied interpretation and/or amend the claim to specifically recite that a ring is a structure of the substrate support and then recite the electrostatic electrode for the ring (e.g. reciting the substrate support further includes a ring disposed above the second electrode and then that the second dielectric further includes an electrostatic electrode for the ring). Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the second electrode is a bias electrode for a ring that is supported by the ring support surface”. This is unclear because it is unclear if the claim is being directed to an intended use of the second (bias) electrode (i.e. the second (bias) electrode is intended to be used to bias a ring disposed above it) or if the claim is intending to also require a ring disposed above the second (bias) electrode. The distinction is particularly critical because if the limitation is directed to an intended use, then the claim limitation may be met by the second electrode being a bias electrode that is intended to bias a different structure such as the outer periphery of a wafer substrate but is capable of being used to bias an edge ring (e.g. an outer peripheral biasing electrode) without specifically requiring an edge ring to be biased or present. Also note that the ring is different from other claims (e.g. 3-4, 6, and 16-17) that refer to a substrate because the ring may be a structure of the substrate support or plasma processing apparatus and is not merely an article worked upon. The instant specification demonstrates a ring above the second (bias) electrode (see ring 120 of Fig 6); however the claim does not explicitly claim the ring as a structure of the substrate support. Therefore, for purpose of examination on the merits, the instant claim limitation will be interpreted inclusive of being directed to an intended use of the second (bias) electrode (i.e. the second (bias) electrode is intended to be used to bias a ring disposed above it but may be biasing a different structure or be otherwise present but not actively be operated to bias a structure). Applicant is kindly requested to confirm the applied interpretation and/or amend the claim to specifically recite that a ring is a structure of the substrate support and then recite the bias electrode for the ring (e.g. reciting the substrate support further includes a ring disposed on the ring support surface and then that the second electrode is a bias electrode for the ring). Claims 9 and 19 recite “a plurality of conductors is disposed along a circumferential direction of the first dielectric”. This limitation is unclear because claim 1 (from which claim 9 depends) recites “a conductor” in line 11 and claim 11 (from which claim 19 depends) recites “a conductor” in line 13. It is unclear if the “plurality of conductors” in claims 9 and 19 is (i) entirely different from the conductor of claims 1 and 11, (ii) a plurality of the conductor of claims 1 and 11, or (iii) similar to the conductor of claim 1 but provided in addition to the conductor of claims 1 and 11 (e.g. conductor of claims 1 and 11 may be a centrally located conductor and the plurality of conductors encircle the centrally located conductor). The instant specification recites in [0076] “a plurality of conductive members 114c1 may be disposed along a circumferential direction of the electrostatic chuck 112.” For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim limitation will be interpreted inclusive of the “plurality of conductors” in claims 9 and 19 is (ii) a plurality of the conductor of claims 1 and 11. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claims 9 and 19 for clarity such as by reciting the conductor is a plurality of conductors disposed along a circumferential direction of the first dielectric. Regarding claim 10 and 20, the claims recite that “the plurality of conductors is disposed at equal intervals along the circumferential direction of the first dielectric”. This language is unclear because it is unclear if there is more than one plurality such that each plurality is disposed at equal intervals or if the limitation is intended to require that the conductors of the plurality of conductors are disposed at equal intervals. For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the claim language is being interpreted inclusive of the conductors of the plurality of conductors are disposed at equal intervals. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claims for clarity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/0074524 of Koshimizu, hereinafter Koshimizu, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0287680 of Benjamin et al., hereinafter Benjamin . Regarding claim 1 and 11, Koshimizu teaches a substrate support (Fig 1, 6 and 8) comprising: a base (18 Fig 1, 6 and 8) electrically connected to at least one power supply (61, 63 Fig 1, 6 and 8); a first dielectric (20d in region 21 Fig 1,6 [0060-0061] or 21d in region 21 Fig 8 [0099-0100]) disposed on the base and having a substrate support surface (Fig 1, 6, 8, see substrate W on upper surface of region 21); and a second dielectric (20d in region 22 Fig 1,6 [0060-0061] or 22d in region 22 Fig 8 [0099-0100]) disposed on the base to surround the first dielectric (Fig 1, 6, 8) [0068] and having a ring support surface (see ring “ER” supported on the upper surface), wherein the first dielectric comprises: a first heat transfer gas diffusion space configured to supply a heat transfer gas toward the substrate support surface (see line 25 in Fig 2 passing through dielectric layer 20) [0067]; and wherein the second dielectric comprises: a second heat transfer gas diffusion space (line 22g Fig 1, 6, 8 [0079]) configured to supply a heat transfer gas toward the ring support surface [0079]; and a second electrode (22c Fig 1, note referred to also in [0097] for apparatus 1E of Fig 6) in the second dielectric and electrically connected to a power supply (61, 63 Fig 6 [0097]) that outputs a common voltage with the base (see connection line 102, [0097] and [0094] note that the connection to the same power supply indicates the power supply is putting out a common voltage). Koshimizu fails to explicitly teach the first heat transfer gas diffusion space is within the first dielectric and the second heat transfer gas diffusion space is disposed within the second dielectric. Koshimizu further fails to teach a first electrode disposed above the first heat transfer gas diffusion space to vertically overlap with at least a part of the first heat transfer gas diffusion space; and a conductor that electrically connects the first electrode and the base and fails to teach the second electrode (22c Fig 1, 6) is disposed above the second heat transfer gas diffusion space to vertically overlap with at least a part of the second heat transfer gas diffusion space. In the same field of endeavor of substrate supports, Benjamin teaches the dielectric (ceramic) layer (115 Fig 2A) fluid flow channels in which backside gas can be flowed and dispensed (i.e. diffused) [0033]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koshimizu to include the fluid flow channels in which backside gas can be flowed and dispensed (i.e. diffused) within the dielectric (ceramic) layer because Koshimizu teaches spaces for horizontal flow of the gas (see horizontal flow line portions of 25 in Koshimizu Fig 2) and Benjamin teaches these structures may be located in the dielectric (ceramic) layer. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Note that because Koshimizu has taught heat transfer gas for each dielectric region, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a diffusion space within each dielectric. Regarding the second electrode (22c Fig 1, 6 of Koshimizu) is disposed above the second heat transfer gas diffusion space to vertically overlap with at least a part of the second heat transfer gas diffusion space, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gas diffusion space below the second electrode because Koshimizu demonstrates more space within the dielectric (see location of 22c in Fig 12B and 12C) and because this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and is obvious to try (choosing from a finite set of options of above or below the gas diffusion space). Regarding a first electrode disposed above the first heat transfer gas diffusion space to vertically overlap with at least a part of the first heat transfer gas diffusion space; and a conductor that electrically connects the first electrode and the base, Benjamin teaches a first electrode (203 Fig 2B [0036]) to vertically overlap the first heat transfer gas diffusion space ([0048] teaches to avoid striking a plasma in that region and [004] teaches electrode 203 has holes for the gas flow channels) to prevent striking plasma in the electrostatic chuck 107 [0048] (i.e. in the gas flow channels). Benjamin further teaches this arrangement requires a conductor (209 Fig 2B) that electrically connects the first electrode (203 Fig 2B) and the base (111 Fig 2B) [0042], [0071], [0072] (note [0072] specifically teaches it is to conduct RF currents). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koshimizu to include the first electrode and conductor as taught by Benjamin because Benjamin teaches that these structures provide protection against the RF currents for structures in the electrostatic chuck such as the heater [0048] and Koshimizu has taught a heater (21h Fig 6, 8) in the electrostatic chuck. Regarding specifically the additional limitations of claim 11, the substrate support of Koshimizu is within the processing chamber (10 Fig 2) of a plasma processing apparatus (Fig 2). Regarding claim 2, 5, and 15, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 and 11 above. In the combination as applied, the first electrode (203 as taught by Benjamin) is located above the heater (21h Fig 1, 6, 8) of Koshimizu and Benjamin has taught the electrode being located below the clamping electrodes (201 Fig 2B [0031]) and therefore the combination includes the first electrode being located below the clamping electrode (21a Fig 1, 6, 8) of Koshimizu. Regarding the first electrode being located in a same plane as the second electrode (22c Fig 1) of Koshimizu, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Additionally, it is noted that the second electrode is at a height that represents the required height of the first electrode of the combination of above the heater (21h Fig 1, 6, 8) and below the clamping electrode (21a Fig 1, 6, 8) such that the first electrode being on the same plane as the second electrode meets the positional requirements for the first electrode. Regarding claim 3, 6, and 16, the combination remains as applied to claim 1, 2, and 11 above. Koshimizu teaches the first dielectric includes a bias electrode (21c Fig 1) [0062], [0064], [0082]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination to include the bias electrode of Koshimizu is located above the first electrode because this represents an obvious to try arrangement and allows for the bias electrode to bias the substrate without being affected by the Faraday cage created by the first electrode. Regarding claim 4 and 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 3 and 17 above. Koshimizu teaches the first dielectric includes an electrostatic electrode (21a Fig 1, 6, 8). Regarding the electrostatic electrode being located above the first electrode, Benjamin teaches the electrostatic electrode (201 Fig 2A,2B [0031]) is located above the first electrode (Fig 2A, 2B, 201 is located above 203). Therefore in the combination as applied, the electrostatic electrode is above the first electrode. Regarding claim 7 and 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 and 11 above. Koshimizu teaches a ring (ER) disposed on the ring support surface above the second electrode (Fig 1, 6, 8). Koshimizu further teaches an electrostatic electrode (22a,22b Fig 1, 6, 8) in the second dielectric (20d Fig 1,6 or 22d Fig 8) above the second electrode (22c Fig 1). Regarding claim 8, 12, and 13 the combination remains as applied to claim 1 and 11 above. Koshimizu teaches a ring (ER) disposed on the ring support surface above the second electrode (Fig 1, 6, 8). Koshimizu further teaches the second electrode (22c Fig 1) is a bias electrode for the ring [0081]. Regarding claim 9 and 19, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 and 11 above. Benjamin as applied in the combination teaches the conductor (209 Fig 2B, 3A) includes a plurality of conductors disposed along a circumferential direction of the first dielectric (Fig 3A, see 209 along circumferential direction). Regarding claim 10 and 20, the combination remains as applied to claim 9 and 19 above. Benjamin as applied in the combination teaches the plurality of conductors disposed along a circumferential direction are disposed at equal intervals (Fig 3A and [0043]). Regarding claim 14, the combination remains as applied to claim 12 above. Koshimizu teaches an area of the ring support surface of the second dielectric is smaller than an area of a lower surface of the edge ring supported by the ring support surface (Fig 1, 6, 8, note that the edge ring “ER” extends beyond the surface of the second dielectric region 22) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0031217 teaches a combination of bias and chucking electrodes (Fig 2-3) and teaches a chucking electrode under the ring (Fig 3). US 2009/0168292 teaches protecting a gas diffusion space of a backside gas from arcing by having the same potential above and below the space [0094] (Fig 6). US 2019/0006225 teaches an electrode (402 Fig 4A) connected to the RF powered base (114 Fig 4A). US2003/0029569 teaches a combination of bias and chucking electrodes (Fig 5) and teaches the order may be swapped (3b, 3c Fig 5 and [0093]). US 2020/0286717 teaches a Faraday cage for preventing plasma formation in the backside gas supply (Fig 2). US 2018/0350561 teaches the electrode heights may be different (262, 263 and 264 Fig 2) or the same (262, 263 and 264 Fig 8). US 2017/0352567 teaches pegs to connect two electrodes to create a faraday cages [0024-0025], Fig 1-3 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30. 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. /MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 2 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 3 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 4 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 5 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 6 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 7 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 8 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 9 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 10 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 11 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 12 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 13 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/586,860 Page 14 Art Unit: 1716
Prosecution Insights