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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-116985, filed on 07/18/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the inorganic adhesive fixes the crack plate to the insulator and the resistance heating element” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The figures only show the inorganic adhesive fixing the crack plate to the resistance heating element, not the resistance heating element and the insulator. The examiner will interpret claim 19 as “An electrostatic chuck module, comprising: a base that includes a flow path for a coolant disposed below the base, a concave part disposed on the base, and a convex part disposed along an outer circumference of the base; an insulator disposed in the concave part of the base; a resistance heating element disposed on or within the insulator; an inorganic adhesive disposed on the resistance heating element; and a crack plate disposed on the inorganic adhesive, wherein the inorganic adhesive fixes the crack plate to the resistance heating element such that the crack plate is in contact with the convex part and spaced apart from the concave part.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: "The electrostatic chuck module may further include an inorganic adhesive that directly or indirectly bonds the crack plate to the insulator via." (paragraph 11 of the specification) is an incomplete sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 are objected to because of the following informality: “ceramics plate disposed on the crack plate and that includes an electrode…” should be “ceramic plate disposed on the crack plate that includes an electrode…”. Claims 3, 12 are objected to because of the following informality: “ceramics plate” should be “ceramic plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The “insulator” will be interpreted as “The thermal conductivity of the insulator 120 is 1 W/m·K or less in an operating temperature range” (paragraph 34 of the specification).
“bonded” of claim 1 will be interpreted as an adhesive connection.
“Crack plate” will be interpreted as any material.
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: "fastening members" in claims 8, 17 and “members with spring force” in claims 9 and 18.
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.
“Fastening members” will be interpreted as screws or rivets and equivalents thereof. “The fastening members 801a and 801b may be, for example, screws or rivets” (paragraph 54 of the specification). “members with spring force” will be interpreted as springs and equivalents thereof. “members with spring force, such as springs” (paragraph 54 of the specification).
Claims 1-2, 10, 13, 19-20’s “resistance heating element(s)” will not be interpreted under 112(f) since they claim sufficient structure (“resistance”).
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.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 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 claims 2 and 13, the phrase “the plurality of resistance heating elements are independently heated to a temperature of 300℃ or higher” is unclear because the term “are heated” creates an active method step in the apparatus claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will read the statement as “the plurality of resistance heating elements are configured to be independently heated to a temperature of 300℃ or higher”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “labyrinth structure” in claims 7, 16 is used by the claim to mean “cavity underneath the convex part of the base,” while the accepted meaning is “system of intricate passageways and blind alleys.” (Encyclopedia Britannica) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The examiner will interpret claims 7 and 16 as “…further comprising one or more cavities disposed below the convex part of the base.”
The term “insulating material” in claims 6, 15, 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “insulating” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unknown whether insulating refers to electrical or thermal conductivity and what the threshold is for material to be considered insulating. For the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret claims 6, 15, 20’s “insulating material” as “material which has a thermal conductivity below 1 W/m·K”.
Claim 20’s “insulating material disposed between the crack plate, the insulator, and the resistance heating element” is unclear since it is uncertain whether the insulating material is above the resistance heating element or below the resistance heating element. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret claim 20 as “insulating material disposed between the crack plate and the insulator”.
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.
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 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci (US 2014/0332161) in view of Morita (JP 2003/179129), Koiwa (US 2022/0301914), and Maeta (US 2018/0269097).
Regarding claim 1, Ricci teaches a substrate support device as shown in Figure 1. Ricci teaches a base 908, “cooling media 919 maintains the temperature of base 908 constant” (paragraph 44), an insulator disposed on the base, a resistance heater disposed on the insulator, a crack plate, and a ceramic plate disposed on the crack plate that includes an electrode that adsorbs a target with static electricity. The plastic plate 928 is an insulator (“The thermal conductivity of solid plate 928 may be about 0.17 W/mK” (paragraph 46)). Ricci also shows resistive heater 912 (“The heater may also include multiple resistive elements” (paragraph 50)) disposed on the insulator 928 via adhesive 926. Therefore, Ricci shows a heater disposed on an insulator. Metal or ceramic plate 914 reads on the crack plate disposed on the insulator and the resistive heating element. Dielectric 916 reads on “a ceramic plate disposed on the crack plate and that includes an electrode that adsorbs a target object with static electricity” as described “Those of ordinary skill in the art will now recognize that any conventionally used material with high field breakdown strength and chemical resistance to the external process can be used for dielectric material 316 (e.g., aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, yttrium oxide, etc.). In accordance with another embodiment, the dielectric material may pre-fabricated and attached to the top surface of the metal plate with a layer of adhesive material” (paragraph 53). Aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, and yttrium oxide are all ceramic. Ricci also describes ceramic plate 916 as containing an electrode: “The layer of dielectric material 916 may be deposited (via CVD, spray-coating, etc… ) on the surface of heater plate 914 (made of metal or ceramic). If a metal plate is used, this same plate may be employed for the clamp electrode. If a ceramic plate is used, then a conductive material of suitable properties would also need to be deposited to form a clampling electrode” (paragraph 45).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
However, Ricci does not disclose “a base that includes a flow path for a coolant disposed below the base, a concave part disposed on the base, and a convex part, which is disposed along an outer circumference of the base”, “insulator disposed in the concave part of the base”, or “the convex part of the base is bonded to the crack plate”.
Koiwa discloses (Figure 2) an electrostatic chuck that utilizes a base (4) having channels (40) through which temperature adjusting medium flows. Koiwa uses this type of construction because it warps less than conventional structures and reliably results in increased flatness across the surface of the chuck (paragraph 35).
While Ricci does disclose the use of a generic cooling media (919) to keep the temperature, based on the teachings of Koiwa, it would have been obvious to try providing coolant flow channels within the base to provide coolant there to achieve the predictable result of preventing warping, thereby increasing flatness across the surface of the chuck.
PNG
media_image2.png
246
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
The modified device of Ricci does not teach “a concave part disposed on the base, and a convex part, which is disposed along an outer circumference of the base” or “the convex part of the base is bonded to the crack plate”.
Morita teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base with a convex portion and a concave portion (Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
147
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3
Morita teaches the convex ring (9) is bonded to the generic chuck (5) “An insulating ring 9 is disposed on the base plate 3 so as to engage with an outer end portion of the electrostatic chuck 5” (paragraph 26).
Morita teaches “In the present embodiment, since the chuck-side step portion 21 of the electrostatic chuck 5 and the ring-side step portion 23 of the insulating ring 9 are engaged with each other, a distance (creepage distance) from the chuck surface 19 side of the electrostatic chuck 5 to the bonding layer 7 is longer than that in a case where there is no step. Therefore, there is an effect that deterioration or peeling of the silicon resin is less likely to occur due to plasma
during dry etching. That is, since the silicon resin is not exposed to the plasma region, there is an advantage in that the deterioration or peeling of the silicon resin is small, and thus, even when the electrostatic chuck 5 is used for a long period of time, the electrostatic chuck 5 is not easily peeled from the base member 3. In addition, since the silicon resin is not exposed to the plasma region, impurities are contaminated from the silicon resin” (paragraphs 45-46).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the convex and concave parts of the base and connect the convex part to the chuck to protect the insulator and thus prolong the life of the device. The insulator would be placed on the concave part just as the electrostatic chuck of Morita was disposed on the concave part. The chuck of Morita is analogous to the ceramic plate (“an electrostatic chuck is known in which an attraction surface (chuck surface) for attracting a semiconductor wafer is provided on a surface of a disk-shaped ceramic insulator (dielectric), and a single electrode or a pair of electrodes are embedded in the insulator. A semiconductor wafer is fixed by the electrostatic chuck (for example, provided with a pair of electrodes)” (paragraph 3 of Morita)).
Based on the combination above, the modified device of Ricci teaches the convex part being connected to the ceramic plate instead of the crack plate. The modified device of Ricci also fails to teach the convex part being bonded to the crack plate.
Maeta teaches the convex part being connected to the crack plate instead of the ceramic plate (Figure 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
326
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4
Connecting the convex part to the crack plate instead of the ceramic plate still completes the function of protecting the insulator and thus prolonging the device. Additionally, there appear to be two known options within the art, attachment to the crack plate and attachment to the ceramic plate.
The convex part of the modified device of Ricci can connect to the ceramic plate or the crack plate and perform the function of protecting the insulator. It would thus have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the convex part to the crack plate instead of the ceramic plate to achieve the predictable result of protecting the insulator.
Maeta also teaches an adhesive 52 made of “silicone resin” (paragraph 91). Maeta teaches that it has increased temperature uniformity of the electrostatic chuck (paragraph 34), compared to prior art such as Morita.
The modified device of Ricci teaches an electrostatic chuck with a convex part to protect the insulator as taught by Morita. However, the modified device of Ricci fails to teach an adhesive/bonding agent connecting the crack plate to the convex part. Maeta discloses an adhesive connecting the crack plate to the convex part. Maeta claims it has improved temperature uniformity compared to Morita. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the convex part to include an adhesive connection to the crack plate to improve temperature uniformity. Using the known technique of applying an adhesive to bond the crack plate and the convex part would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Ricci includes the convex part of Morita.
Morita teaches that convex part “9 is an annular member having,
for example, an outer-diameter 350mm, an inner-diameter 294mm, and a thickness 2mm” (paragraph 29). Thus, Morita reads on “a thickness of the convex part of the base is between 2 mm and 5 mm”.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Maeta, and Parkhe (US 2021/0159098), and as evidenced by Accuratus.
The modified device of Ricci does not teach “a difference between thermal expansion coefficients of the ceramics plate and the crack plate is ±2×10-6/K or less at operating temperatures”.
Parkhe describes the crack plate “In one embodiment, the lower puck plate 190 is a SiC porous body that is infiltrated with an AlSi alloy (referred to as AlSiSiC). The AlSiSiC material may be used, for example, in reactive etch environments. In another embodiment, the lower puck plate 190 is a metal matrix composite of Si, SiC and Ti (SiSiCTi). Alternatively, the lower puck plate 190 may be Molybdenum. AN may have a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 4.5-5 parts per million per degrees C. (ppm/° C.). AlSiSiC may have a coefficient of thermal expansion of around 5 ppm/° C. Molybdenum may have a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 5.5 ppm/° C” (paragraph 29). Parkhe describes the ceramic plate “The upper puck plate may be composed of a dielectric such as AlN or Al.sub.2O.sub.3” (paragraph 26). Al2O3 has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 8.4 10–6/°C (Accuratus).
A choice of a crack plate made of molybdenum and a ceramic plate made of AlN, as described by Parkhe, would read on “a difference between thermal expansion coefficients of the ceramics plate and the crack plate is ±2×10-6/K or less at operating temperatures”.
Parkhe explains the benefit of matching CTE: “the material used for the lower puck plate 420 may be suitably chosen so that a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) for the lower puck plate 420 material substantially matches the CTE of the electrically insulative upper puck plate 415 material in order to minimize CTE mismatch and avoid thermo-mechanical stresses which may damage the electrostatic puck assembly 410 during thermal cycling” (paragraph 53).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the crack plate molybdenum and the ceramic plate AlN to avoid thermos-mechanical stresses which may damage the electrostatic chuck during thermal cycling.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, and Parkhe.
Regarding claim 10, Ricci teaches a substrate support device as shown in Figure 1. Ricci teaches a base 908, “cooling media 919 maintains the temperature of base 908 constant” (paragraph 44), an insulator disposed on the base, a resistance heater disposed on the insulator, and a crack plate. The plastic plate 928 is an insulator (“The thermal conductivity of solid plate 928 may be about 0.17 W/mK” (paragraph 46)). Ricci also shows resistive heater 912 (“The heater may also include multiple resistive elements” (paragraph 50)) disposed on the insulator 928 via adhesive 926. Therefore, Ricci shows a heater disposed on an insulator. Metal or ceramic plate 914 reads on the crack plate disposed on the insulator and the resistive heating element.
However, Ricci does not disclose “a base that includes a flow path for a coolant disposed below the base, a concave part disposed on the base, and a convex part disposed along an outer circumference of the base”, “insulator disposed in the concave part of the base”, “crack plate … in contact with the convex part”, or “a width of the convex part is between 2 mm and 5 mm”.
Koiwa discloses (Figure 2) an electrostatic chuck that utilizes a base (4) having channels (40) through which temperature adjusting medium flows. Koiwa uses this type of construction because it warps less than conventional structures and reliably results in increased flatness across the surface of the chuck (paragaph 35).
While Ricci does disclose the use of a generic cooling media (919) to keep the temperature, based on the teachings of Koiwa it would have been obvious to try providing coolant flow channels within the base to provide coolant there through to achieve the predictable result of preventing warping, thereby increasing flatness across the surface of the chuck.
The modified device of Ricci does not teach “concave part disposed on the base, and a convex part disposed along an outer circumference of the base”, “crack plate … in contact with the convex part”, or “a width of the convex part is between 2 mm and 5 mm”.
Morita teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base with a convex portion and a concave portion (Figure 3).
Morita teaches the convex ring (9) is bonded to the generic chuck (5) “An insulating ring 9 is disposed on the base plate 3 so as to engage with an outer end portion of the electrostatic chuck 5” (paragraph 26).
Morita teaches “In the present embodiment, since the chuck-side step portion 21 of the electrostatic chuck 5 and the ring-side step portion 23 of the insulating ring 9 are engaged with each other, a distance (creepage distance) from the chuck surface 19 side of the electrostatic chuck 5 to the bonding layer 7 is longer than that in a case where there is no step. Therefore, there is an effect that deterioration or peeling of the silicon resin is less likely to occur due to plasma
during dry etching. That is, since the silicon resin is not exposed to the plasma region, there is an advantage in that the deterioration or peeling of the silicon resin is small, and thus, even when the electrostatic chuck 5 is used for a long period of time, the electrostatic chuck 5 is not easily peeled from the base member 3. In addition, since the silicon resin is not exposed to the plasma region, impurities are contaminated from the silicon resin” (paragraphs 45-46).
Morita also teaches that convex part “9 is an annular member having,
for example, an outer-diameter 350mm, an inner-diameter 294mm, and a thickness 2mm” (paragraph 29). Thus, Morita reads on “a width of the convex part is between 2 mm and 5 mm”.
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the convex and concave parts of the base and connect the convex part to the chuck to protect the insulator and thus prolong the life of the device. The insulator would be placed on the concave part just as the electrostatic chuck of Morita was disposed on the concave part. The chuck of Morita is analogous to the dielectric plate of Ricci (“an electrostatic chuck is known in which an attraction surface (chuck surface) for attracting a semiconductor wafer is provided on a surface of a disk-shaped ceramic insulator (dielectric), and a single electrode or a pair of electrodes are embedded in the insulator. A semiconductor wafer is fixed by the electrostatic chuck (for example, provided with a pair of electrodes)” (paragraph 3 of Morita)).
The modified device of Ricci teaches the convex part being connected to the dielectric plate instead of the crack plate. The modified device of Ricci also fails to teach the convex part being in contact with the crack plate.
Parkhe teaches an electrostatic chuck with the convex part being in contact with the crack plate via O-ring 480 (Figure 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
264
625
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5
Connecting the convex part to the crack plate instead of the ceramic plate still completes the function of protecting the insulator and thus prolonging the device. Additionally, there appear to be two known options within the art, contact with the crack plate and contact with the ceramic plate. It would thus have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the convex part of the crack plate instead of the ceramic plate to achieve the predictable result of protecting the insulator.
Parkhe teaches O-ring 480: “The o-ring 480 may be a PFP o-ring in one embodiment. The o-ring 480 may be used to facilitate a vacuum seal” (paragraph 72).
For a separate embodiment, Parkhe explains the benefit of a vacuum seal: “The o-ring 240 or gasket provide a vacuum seal between a chamber interior volume and interior volumes within the electrostatic puck assembly 150. The interior volumes within the electrostatic puck assembly 150 include open spaces within the pedestal 152 for routing conduits and wiring” (paragraph 39).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the crack plate be in contact with the convex part via an o-ring to create a vacuum seal to protect the wiring within the electrostatic chuck. Ricci contains interior wiring (elements 922 and 924).
Regarding claim 11, Ricci teaches a dielectric 916 which reads on “a ceramic plate disposed on the crack plate that includes an electrode that adsorbs a target object with static electricity”. Ricci further teaches “Those of ordinary skill in the art will now recognize that any conventionally used material with high field breakdown strength and chemical resistance to the external process can be used for dielectric material 316 (e.g., aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, yttrium oxide, etc.). In accordance with another embodiment, the dielectric material may pre-fabricated and attached to the top surface of the metal plate with a layer of adhesive material” (paragraph 53). Aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, and yttrium oxide are all ceramic. Ricci also describes ceramic plate 916 as containing an electrode: “The layer of dielectric material 916 may be deposited (via CVD, spray-coating, etc… ) on the surface of heater plate 914 (made of metal or ceramic). If a metal plate is used, this same plate may be employed for the clamp electrode. If a ceramic plate is used, then a conductive material of suitable properties would also need to be deposited to form a clampling electrode” (paragraph 45).
Claim 12 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 3.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Maeta, and Ptasienski (US 2013/0161305) and as evidenced by Kanakasabapathy (US 2013/0309852).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Ricci includes the limitations of claim 1, including the resistance heating element.
Ricci further teaches “The heater can be composed of multiple, independently controlled regions to impart a spatially resolved thermal pattern” (paragraph 9). This reads upon “the resistance heating element includes a plurality of resistance heating elements” and “the plurality of resistance heating elements are configured to be independently heated”.
However, the modified device of Ricci does not teach the heating elements being arranged in a concentric manner nor does Ricci teach the heating elements being configured to heat to a temperature of 300°C or higher.
Ptasienski teaches a heater for use in semiconductor processing. Ptasienski teaches the heating elements being arranged in a concentric manner (Figure 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
206
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6
Ricci teaches an electrostatic chuck with independently heated resistance heating elements. Ptasienski teaches a heater for use in semiconductor processing with the heating elements being arranged in a concentric manner.
All of the component parts are known in Ricci and Ptasienski. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single electrostatic chuck.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mount the concentrically arranged resistance heating elements of Ptasienski into the electrostatic chuck of Ricci, since the operation of the resistance heating elements is in no way dependent on the operation of the other equipment of the electrostatic chuck, and a resistance heating element could be used in combination with a electrostatic chuck to achieve the predictable results of heating the electrostatic chuck.
The modified device of Ricci does not teach the heating elements being configured to heat to a temperature of 300°C or higher.
Koiwa teaches a electrostatic chuck capable of being heated to 300°C “For heat insulating sheets with a larger surface area, dividing the heat insulating sheets into a greater number of pieces (heat insulating sheet pieces separated by thermal buffers) further reduces warping of the ESC plate 5 as seen in FIG. 8, which is a graph illustrating results obtained from a simulation of warpage of the ESC plate 5 for four different configurations of the PI sheet, a comparative example, and the examples of FIGS. 10, 11 and 12. In this simulation, the surface warpage of the ESC plate 5 is analyzed using a PI sheet and a ceramic chuck plate bonded at 300° C” (paragraph 41) by dividing the insulator into pieces.
Kanakasabapathy teaches a method of making an aluminum-containing gate and teaches “In one embodiment, a chuck that holds the first exemplary semiconductor structure during the second etch can be heated to an elevated temperature, e.g., from 200 degrees Celsius to 400 degrees Celsius, to provide enhanced selectivity to silicon oxide and silicon nitride” (paragraph 55).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified device of Ricci so that the heaters are configured to heat to 300°C or higher to allow for enhanced selectivity to silicon oxide and silicon nitride when etching.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Parkhe, and Ptasienski and as evidenced by Kanakasabapathy.
Claim 13 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 2.
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Maeta, and Kugimoto (US 2018/0053678).
Regarding claim 5, The modified device of Ricci does not teach an inorganic adhesive that directly or indirectly bonds the crack plate to the insulator.
Kugimoto teaches an electrostatic chuck with “The second adhesive layer 8 is formed of, for example, a cured body obtained by thermally curing a silicone resin composition” (paragraph 75). Kugimoto also teaches “The heater section 10 has a first adhesive layer 4a bonded to the lower surface of the electrostatic chuck section 2, a heater element 5 bonded to the lower surface of the first adhesive layer 4a and having a predetermined pattern, and an inorganic ceramic membrane 4b provided so as to cover the heater element 5 from the lower surface of the heater element 5” (paragraph 46). Kugimoto also teaches “The first adhesive layer 4a is a layer which uses an inorganic adhesive agent as a forming material thereof and bonds the heater element 5 to the electrostatic chuck section 2” (paragraph 47). Figure 7 shows the electrostatic chuck of Kugimoto. As shown in Figure 7, the inorganic adhesive indirectly bonds the crack plate to the insulator.
Kugimoto also teaches “as a method of forming a heater (a heating element), a method in which a thin film of nickel or copper is formed on the surface of a ceramic substrate by various film formation methods such as a plating method, a sputtering method, a vapor deposition method, and a thermal spraying method, and thereafter, unnecessary portions are removed by etching. In this method, variation easily occurs in the thickness of the thin film which is formed on the surface of the substrate, and as a result, a heater which is formed includes portions having different thicknesses. If the heater has variation in thickness, the amount of heat generation varies according to sites of the heater and this causes a temperature difference in the plane of a wafer. Therefore, the inventor of the present invention proposed that an electrostatic chuck device in which variation in the thickness of a heater is eliminated can be manufactured by forming a heater pattern by attaching a metal thin film, in which variation in thickness falls within an allowable range, to the surface of a ceramic substrate in advance, and then etching the metal thin film. In this method, when attaching the substrate and the metal thin film to each other, an adhesive layer having high heat resistance is formed by using an organic adhesive agent having high heat resistance, such as an epoxy adhesive agent, a polyimide adhesive agent, or a silicone adhesive agent. The “heat resistance of an adhesive layer” means that the adhesive layer is not dissolved or decomposed by applied heat and can maintain a constant state. For example, an “adhesive layer having heat resistance of 200° C. or higher” means that the adhesive layer is not dissolved or decomposed even if it reaches a temperature of 200° C. However, in the case of an electrostatic chuck device in which the organic adhesive agent as described above is used for a material for forming the adhesive layer between the substrate and the heater, there is a concern that various problems such as deformation of the substrate or peeling-off of the heater may occur due to deterioration of the adhesive layer or a difference in coefficient of thermal expansion between the ceramic substrate and the adhesive layer. Such problems tend to become obvious in a case where the electrostatic chuck device is used under high-temperature environment of 200° C. or higher, and thus a technique for improvement is required.” (Paragraphs 6-10) and “in the electrostatic chuck device of this embodiment, the first adhesive layer 4a which is formed by using an inorganic adhesive agent is used for the bonding of the heater element 5 and the electrostatic chuck section 2. For this reason, even under a high-temperature use condition, the electrostatic chuck device can be used without occurrence of trouble caused by thermal deterioration of the first adhesive layer 4a, unlike the electrostatic chuck device of the related art” (paragraph 79).
PNG
media_image7.png
247
596
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified device of Ricci to add the inorganic adhesive 4a of Kugimoto to improve function at a high temperature, such as to prevent the heater peeling off from the crack plate at high temperatures.
Regarding claim 6, Ricci teaches an insulating material interposed between the crack plate and the insulator: 926 (see Figure 1). 926 is an insulating material: “The thermal conductivity of solid plate 928 may be about 0.17 W/mK. The thermal conductivity of solid plate 928 may be substantially similar to the thermal conductivity of the top and bottom layer of adhesive material 926 and 930” (paragraph 46).
The modified device of Ricci includes the limitations of claim 5, including the modification to add an inorganic adhesive between the heater and the crack plate, which reads on “the resistance heating element is not directly in contact with the crack plate”.
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Parkhe, and Kugimoto (US 2018/0053678).
Claim 14 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 5.
Claim 15 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Maeta, and Tian et al. (KR 20220132622), hereinafter "Tian".
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Ricci includes the limitations of claim 1, including the convex part of the base around the outer circumference. However, the modified device of Ricci fails to teach one or more cavities under the convex part.
Tian teaches a wafer chuck with cavities in the base disposed near the outer circumference. Tian teaches “The use of such thermal tuning cavity features may allow for a chuck to be provided that provides exceptional temperature uniformity across the wafer support area” (paragraph 8).
PNG
media_image8.png
147
625
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 8
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the cavities of Tian to the modified device of Ricci to improve temperature uniformity.
The modified device of Ricci includes a convex part on the base around the outer circumference. Therefore, the cavities would be disposed under the convex part of the modified device of Ricci.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Parkhe, and Tian.
Claim 16 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 7.
Claims 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Maeta, and Wang (US 2001/0035403).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Ricci includes the limitations of claim 1.
The modified device of Ricci does not teach fastening members that fix the crack plate to the base.
Wang teaches a wafer chuck: “The screws 38 are used with bevel or spring washers 39 to provide a spring force to secure the heaters 36. This design reduces the built-in mechanical stress, as the screws 38 are not fully tightened” (paragraph 13).
PNG
media_image9.png
381
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 9
Wang also teaches “the thermal expansion of different materials (heater, fasteners, and chuck) introduces additional stress in the chuck, changing the chuck flatness” (paragraph 12).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fastening members and bevel or spring washers of Wang to the modified device of Ricci to mitigate the stress from the different thermal expansion of different materials.
However, Wang teaches the fastening members connecting the top part and the bottom part, not the crack plate and the base.
There are a limited number of parts above the heater of Ricci (such as the ceramic plate and the crack plate) and below the heater of Ricci (such as the insulator, adhesives, and the base). It would thus have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fastening members to attach the crack plate to the base.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Ricci imports the limitations of claim 8, including the fastening members that fix the crack plate to the base.
Wang teaches “The screws 38 are used with bevel or spring washers 39 to provide a spring force to secure the heaters 36” (paragraph 13). This reads on further comprising dish springs or springs and equivalents thereof.
Claims 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Parkhe, and Wang.
Claim 17 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected for a similar reason as claim 9.
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci in view of Morita, Koiwa, Parkhe, and Kugimoto.
Regarding claim 19, Ricci teaches a substrate support device as shown in Figure 1. Ricci teaches a base 908, “cooling media 919 maintains the temperature of base 908 constant” (paragraph 44), an insulator disposed on the base, a resistance heater disposed on the insulator, and a crack plate. The plastic plate 928 is an insulator (“The thermal conductivity of solid plate 928 may be about 0.17 W/mK” (paragraph 46)). Ricci also shows resistive heater 912 (“The heater may also include multiple resistive elements” (paragraph 50)) disposed on the insulator 928 via adhesive 926. Therefore, Ricci shows a heater disposed on an insulator. Metal or ceramic plate 914 reads on the crack plate disposed on the insulator and the resistive heating element.
However, Ricci does not disclose “a base that includes a flow path for a coolant disposed below the base, a concave part disposed on the base, and a convex part disposed along an outer circumference of the base”, “insulator disposed in the concave part of the base”, “an inorganic adhesive disposed on the resistance heating element; and a crack plate disposed on the inorganic adhesive, wherein the inorganic adhesive fixes the crack plate to the insulator and the resistance heating element such that the crack plate is in contact with the convex part and spaced apart from the concave part”.
Koiwa discloses (Figure 2) an electrostatic chuck that utilizes a base (4) having channels (40) through which temperature adjusting medium flows. Koiwa uses this type of construction because it warps less than conventional structures and reliably results in increased flatness across the surface of the chuck (paragraph 35).
While Ricci does disclose the use of a generic cooling media (919) to keep the temperature, based on the teachings of Koiwa it would have been obvious to try providing coolant flow channels within the base to provide coolant there to achieve the predictable result of preventing warping, thereby increasing flatness across the surface of the chuck.
The modified device of Ricci does not teach “concave part disposed on the base, and a convex part disposed along an outer circumference of the base” or “an inorganic adhesive disposed on the resistance heating element; and a crack plate disposed on the inorganic adhesive, wherein the inorganic adhesive fixes the crack plate to the insulator and the resistance heating element such that the crack plate is in contact with the convex part and spaced apart from the concave part”.
Morita teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base with a convex portion and a concave portion (Figure 3).
Morita teaches the convex ring (9) is bonded to the generic chuck (5) “An insulating ring 9 is disposed on the base plate 3 so as to engage with an outer end portion of the electrostatic chuck 5” (paragraph 26).
Morita teaches “In the present embodiment, since the chuck-side step portion 21 of the electrostatic chuck 5 and the ring-side step portion 23 of the insulating ring 9 are engaged with each other, a distance (creepage distance) from the chuck surface 19 side of the electrostatic chuck 5 to the bonding layer 7 is longer than that in a case where there is no step. Therefore, there is an effect that deterioration or peeling of the silicon resin is less likely to occur due to plasma
during dry etching. That is, since the silicon resin is not exposed to the plasma region, there is an advantage in that the deterioration or peeling of the silicon resin is small, and thus, even when the electrostatic chuck 5 is used for a long period of time, the electrostatic chuck 5 is not easily peeled from the base member 3. In addition, since the silicon resin is not exposed to the plasma region, impurities are contaminated from the silicon resin” (paragraphs 45-46).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the convex and concave parts of the base and connect the convex part to the chuck to protect the insulator and thus prolong the life of the device. The insulator would be placed on the concave part just as the electrostatic chuck of Morita was disposed on the concave part. The chuck of Morita is analogous to the dielectric plate of Ricci (“an electrostatic chuck is known in which an attraction surface (chuck surface) for attracting a semiconductor wafer is provided on a surface of a disk-shaped ceramic insulator (dielectric), and a single electrode or a pair of electrodes are embedded in the insulator. A semiconductor wafer is fixed by the electrostatic chuck (for example, provided with a pair of electrodes)” (paragraph 3 of Morita)).
The modified device of Ricci teaches the convex part being connected to the dielectric plate instead of the crack plate. The modified device of Ricci also fails to teach the convex part being in contact with the crack plate. The modified device of Ricci also fails to show the inorganic adhesive fixing the crack plate to the insulator.
Parkhe teaches an electrostatic chuck with the convex part being in contact with the crack plate via O-ring 480 (Figure 5).
Parkhe teaches O-ring 480: “The o-ring 480 may be a PFP o-ring in one embodiment. The o-ring 480 may be used to facilitate a vacuum seal” (paragraph 72).
For a separate embodiment, Parkhe explains the benefit of a vacuum seal: “The o-ring 240 or gasket provide a vacuum seal between a chamber interior volume and interior volumes within the electrostatic puck assembly 150. The interior volumes within the electrostatic puck assembly 150 include open spaces within the pedestal 152 for routing conduits and wiring” (paragraph 39).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the crack plate be in contact with the convex part via an o-ring to create a vacuum seal to protect the wiring within the electrostatic chuck. Ricci contains interior wiring (elements 922 and 924).
The modified device of Ricci does not teach an inorganic adhesive that fixes the crack plate to the insulator and resistance heating element such that the crack plate is in contact with the convex part and spaced apart from the concave part.
Kugimoto teaches an electrostatic chuck with “The second adhesive layer 8 is formed of, for example, a cured body obtained by thermally curing a silicone resin composition” (paragraph 75). Kugimoto also teaches “The heater section 10 has a first adhesive layer 4a bonded to the lower surface of the electrostatic chuck section 2, a heater element 5 bonded to the lower surface of the first adhesive layer 4a and having a predetermined pattern, and an inorganic ceramic membrane 4b provided so as to cover the heater element 5 from the lower surface of the heater element 5” (paragraph 46). Kugimoto also teaches “The first adhesive layer 4a is a layer which uses an inorganic adhesive agent as a forming material thereof and bonds the heater element 5 to the electrostatic chuck section 2” (paragraph 47). Figure 7 shows the electrostatic chuck of Kugimoto. As shown in Figure 7, the inorganic adhesive indirectly bonds the crack plate to the insulator.
Kugimoto also teaches “as a method of forming a heater (a heating element), a method in which a thin film of nickel or copper is formed on the surface of a ceramic substrate by various film formation methods such as a plating method, a sputtering method, a vapor deposition method, and a thermal spraying method, and thereafter, unnecessary portions are removed by etching. In this method, variation easily occurs in the thickness of the thin film which is formed on the surface of the substrate, and as a result, a heater which is formed includes portions having different thicknesses. If the heater has variation in thickness, the amount of heat generation varies according to sites of the heater and this causes a temperature difference in the plane of a wafer. Therefore, the inventor of the present invention proposed that an electrostatic chuck device in which variation in the thickness of a heater is eliminated can be manufactured by forming a heater pattern by attaching a metal thin film, in which variation in thickness falls within an allowable range, to the surface of a ceramic substrate in advance, and then etching the metal thin film. In this method, when attaching the substrate and the metal thin film to each other, an adhesive layer having high heat resistance is formed by using an organic adhesive agent having high heat resistance, such as an epoxy adhesive agent, a polyimide adhesive agent, or a silicone adhesive agent. The “heat resistance of an adhesive layer” means that the adhesive layer is not dissolved or decomposed by applied heat and can maintain a constant state. For example, an “adhesive layer having heat resistance of 200° C. or higher” means that the adhesive layer is not dissolved or decomposed even if it reaches a temperature of 200° C. However, in the case of an electrostatic chuck device in which the organic adhesive agent as described above is used for a material for forming the adhesive layer between the substrate and the heater, there is a concern that various problems such as deformation of the substrate or peeling-off of the heater may occur due to deterioration of the adhesive layer or a difference in coefficient of thermal expansion between the ceramic substrate and the adhesive layer. Such problems tend to become obvious in a case where the electrostatic chuck device is used under high-temperature environment of 200° C. or higher, and thus a technique for improvement is required.” (Paragraphs 6-10) and “in the electrostatic chuck device of this embodiment, the first adhesive layer 4a which is formed by using an inorganic adhesive agent is used for the bonding of the heater element 5 and the electrostatic chuck section 2. For this reason, even under a high-temperature use condition, the electrostatic chuck device can be used without occurrence of trouble caused by thermal deterioration of the first adhesive layer 4a, unlike the electrostatic chuck device of the related art” (paragraph 79).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified device of Ricci to add the inorganic adhesive 4a of Kugimoto to improve function at a high temperature, such as to prevent the heating element peeling off from the crack plate at high temperatures.
Regarding claim 20, Ricci teaches an insulating material interposed between the crack plate and the insulator: 926 (see Figure 1). 926 is an insulating material: “The thermal conductivity of solid plate 928 may be about 0.17 W/mK. The thermal conductivity of solid plate 928 may be substantially similar to the thermal conductivity of the top and bottom layer of adhesive material 926 and 930” (paragraph 46).
The modified device of Ricci includes the limitations of claim 19, including the modification to add an inorganic adhesive between the heater and the crack plate, which reads on “the resistance heating element is not directly in contact with the crack plate”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yahav (US 5374807) teaches a cooktop with multiple layers. Yamazaki (US 2023/0115256) teaches an electrostatic chuck. Sakamoto (JP 2003031344) teaches a ceramic heater. Kadomura et al. (JP H10064984) teaches an electrostatic chuck. Tatsumi (JP 2004349666) teaches an electrostatic chuck.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET H. CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5718. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday/Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/M.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights