1Notice 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
References in IDS filed 14 Jan 2025 have been considered accept where lined through. Examiner specifically notes that the following references were not considered because the Applicant has not provided a copy of those references.
NPL references:
Cite no. 015: International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated August 13, 2020 issued in Application No. PCT/US2019/015865 [LAMRP741WO]
Cite no. 022: International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 17, 2019 issued in Application No. PCT/US2019/015865 [LAMRP741WO]
Cite no. 026: JP Office Action dated June 14, 2022, in Application No.JP2019-566224 With English Translation [LAMRP716JP].
Cite no. 027: JP Office Action dated April 04, 2023, in Application No. JP2020-541696 with English translation [LAMRP741JP].
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation “tube adapter” and “tube adapter portion” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as comprising a tube-shaped part configured to connect two parts of an apparatus. A “tube adapter” or “tube adapter portion” can include a shaft connecting a chuck/platen to the chamber or a feedthrough spool configured to connect a shaft to facility power or utilities.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the insulative tubes" should read as "the plurality of insulative tubes" to be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 8 is objected to objected to because of the following informalities: “at least to a distal of the tube adapter” should read as “at least to a distal portion of the tube adapter” to correct grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18, 19, 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 18, 19, 20: limitation "wherein each of the separator sleeves" is unclear and confusing since none of claims 18, 19, 20 nor claim 17 (on which claims 18, 19, 20 respectively depends) establishes a plurality of separate sleeves. Specifically, claim 17, recites "each of the plurality of insulative tubes is held in place and separated from remaining ones of the insulative tubes by one or more separator sleeves" which does not preclude a single separator sleeve configured to separate each insulative tube of the plurality of insulative tubes.
For the purpose of examination, claim 18, 19, 20 limitation discussed above shall be interpreted as "the separator sleeve further comprises a plurality of separator sleeves wherein each of the separator sleeves…"
Further regarding claim 18, limitation “the ESC” is unclear if this is this same or different from recitation of “an electrostatic chuck assembly (ESC) assembly” and “the ESC assembly” in claim 14.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “the ESC” as “the ESC assembly.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 2003/0169553 A1 hereinafter “Brown”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Preamble limitations, "of a plasma-based processing system" are intended use and do not receive patentable weight. However, those limitations are mapped to the prior art for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding independent claim 14, Brown teaches an electrostatic chuck (ESC) assembly (comprising wafer support assembly 104 including electrostatic chuck 105, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0017]) of a plasma-based processing system (comprising processing chamber 100, Fig. 1, para. [0015]-[0016], [0040]), the ESC assembly comprising:
a top plate (comprising electrostatic chuck 105, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0017]) configured to support a substrate (comprising wafer 102, Fig. 1); and
a pedestal (comprising pedestal base 106, Fig. 1 and 2) with a tube adapter portion (comprising shaft 126, Fig. 1 and 2) (para. [0018]);
wherein the tube adapter portion (comprising 126, Fig. 1 and 2) comprises a plurality of insulative tubes (comprising insulating retaining sleeves 308, mica ribbon 310, second insulation layer 312 of electrode cables 1641 and 1642, Fig. 2, 3A, para.[0019],[0026], [0031]) within the tube adapter portion (comprising 126, Fig. 2), each of the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 308, Fig. 3A) configured to receive one of multiple RF signal electrodes (comprising wire strand 302, Fig. 3A),
each of the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 308, 310, 312 of cable 164, Fig. 2) extends at least to a distal end of the tube adapter portion (comprising 126, Fig. 2).
Regarding limitation "each of the plurality of insulative tubes is configured to prevent arcing between a respective one of the RF signal electrodes received therein and a main body of the tube adapter portion during operation of the plasma-based processing system" this is an intended use/functional limitation. Since Brown teaches all of the structural limitations including the plurality of insulative tubes and the tube adapter portion and further teaches that the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 308, 310, 312, Fig. 3A) is configured to provide RF isolation (para. [0034], [0038]), the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
The courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP §2114. II
Regarding claim 15, Brown teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as applied above and further teaches the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 308, 310 and 312, Fig. 3A) are configured to provide 6 KV RF isolation rated for temperatures as high as 1000º C and the electrostatic chuck operates at a temperature range of -20ºC to 450 ºC(para.[0014], [0017],[0034], claim 21). Thus, limitation “wherein the plurality of insulative tubes have a dielectric strength that is substantially consistent in time in the presence of elevated temperatures encountered during operation of the plasma-based processing system” would obviously be met.
Regarding claim 23, Brown teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as applied above and further teaches at least one gas-purge line (comprising gas line 142, Fig. 2, para. [0019] discloses the gas line is capable of providing a purge/inert gas such as helium).
Regarding claim 24, Brow teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as applied above and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 308, 310, 312 of 1641 and 1642, Fig. 2 and 1) extends below a lower portion of the tube adapter portion (comprising 126, Fig. 2) (since Fig. 1 shows 164 and 1642 extending outside of tube adapter portion 126 to connect to a RF source 124 the insulative tubes surrounding comprising the cables 164 would necessarily also extend outside of the tube adapter portion 126).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”), Zhao et al. (US 2003/0051665 A1 hereinafter “Zhao”), Maki (IDS art JP 4034145 B2 and cited in parent 16/966833) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jennings teaches substrate support assembly (comprising substrate holder 110, Fig. 1, para. [0037], [0046]) comprising:
a top plate (comprising mesa 140, Fig. 2, para. [0037]) configured to support a substrate (comprising substrate 186, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0037]);
a pedestal (comprising column 142, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0037]);
a tube adapter (comprising feed through spool 218, Fig. 2, para. [0046]); and
the substrate support assembly (comprising 110, Fig. 1) is configured to be operated in a plasma-based processing system (comprising substrate process chamber 100, Fig. 1, para. [0031]-[0032]).
Jennings is silent regarding the substrate support assembly being an electrostatic chuck. Jennings does not explicitly teach a dielectric coating formed on a portion of an inner surface of the tube adapter configured to prevent arcing within the tube adapter during an operation of a plasma-based processing system, wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient-of-thermal-expansion (CTE) that is selected to prevent particle shedding due to changes in a thermal environment in which the tube adapter operates.
Examiner notes that Jennings teaches the substrate support assembly is configured to hold a semiconductor substrate (para. [0031], claim 8).
Additionally, Gomm teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising pedestal module 320, Fig. 1, 2) configured as an electrostatic chuck assembly which is a known suitable supporting configuration for electrostatically clamping a semiconductor substrate (para. [0018], [0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate support assembly to be an electrostatic chuck assembly because Jennings already teaches the substrate support is configured to hold a semiconductor substrate and because Gomm teaches that an electrostatic chuck assembly is a known suitable substrate holder configuration which would enable electrostatically clamping a semiconductor substrate (Gomm: para. [0018], [0028]).
Jennings in view of Gomm as applied above does not explicitly teach the tube adapter comprises a dielectric coating formed on a portion of an inner surface of the tube adapter configured to prevent arcing within the tube adapter during an operation of a plasma-based processing system, wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient-of-thermal-expansion (CTE) that is selected to prevent particle shedding due to changes in a thermal environment in which the tube adapter operates.
However, Zhao teaches providing dielectric/ceramic plug (comprising 862, Fig. 8B) in a tube adapter (comprising shaft 861, Fig. 8B) to suppress arcing between RF electrode rod (856, Fig. 8B-8C) and other conductors (para. [0118]-[0119]).
Additionally, Maki teaches that anodized coating or polyimide resin coating on a surface of a chuck component (comprising temperature control unit 27, Fig. 1) also prevents abnormal discharge (i.e. arcing) and thus reduce surface scratching (para. [0024]).
Further, Wu teaches a protective coating selected to have a thermal coefficient of expansion to sufficiently match or be compatible with the object on which it is coated to avoid cracking or the inducement of mechanical stresses in the underlying object (col 3 line 43-54).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the dielectric coating to prevent arcing within the tube adapter during an operation of a plasma-based processing system and to select a dielectric coating material having a coefficient-of-thermal-expansion (CTE) that is substantially similar to a material from which the tube adapter portion is formed because Zhao teaches/suggests providing a dielectric material in a tube adapter Maki teaches/suggests that a dielectric coating that prevents arcing/abnormal discharge reduces surface scratching (Maki: para. [0024]) and Wu further teaches that selection of a coating having thermal coefficient of expansion to sufficiently match or be compatible with the object on which it is coated enables avoiding cracking or inducement of mechanical stress (Wu: col 3 line 43-54).
Since Wu teaches a selecting a material of a protective coating to have a thermal coefficient of expansion to sufficiently match or be compatible with the object on which it is coated to avoid cracking or the inducement of mechanical stresses in the underlying object (Wu: col 3 line 43-54) limitation “wherein the CTE for the dielectric coating is selected to prevent particle shedding due to changes in a thermal environment in which the tube adapter operates” would obviously be met.
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Jennings in view of Gomm, Zhao, Maki, Wu {hereinafter "modified Jennings"} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Jennings further teaches wherein the pedestal (comprising column 142, Fig. 2) is mechanically coupled to the tube adapter (comprising 218, Fig. 2)(para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jennings all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Jennings further teaches a plurality of insulative tubes (comprising dielectric material 252 shown as multiple tubes in Fig. 2 and 4) within the tube adapter (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4), each of the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising dielectric material 252 shown as multiple tubes in Fig. 2 and 4) configured to (i.e. capable of) receive one of RF signal electrodes (comprising inner electrode bus 230 and outer electrode bus 232, Fig. 2 and 4, para. [0048]; note: 230 and 232 are considered RF signal electrodes since they provide radio frequency power to inner electrode 112 and outer electrode 114, respectively, as understood from para. [0038],[0048], [0058],[0074]) to be enclosed therein (para. [0048]).
Regarding limitation “each of the plurality of insulative tubes being configured to prevent arcing between the respective one of the RF signal electrodes enclosed therein and a main body of the tube adapter during operation of the plasma-based processing system,” these are intended use/functional limitations.
Since Jennings teaches all of the structural limitations and additionally teaches that the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising dielectric material 252, Fig. 2 and 4) is configured to electrically isolate the high voltage electrodes (230 and 232, Fig. 2 and 4) from the tube adapter portion (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4, para. [0048]), the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II
Regarding claim 7, modified Jennings all of the limitations of claim 1, 6 as applied above and Jennings further teaches wherein the respective one of multiple RF signal electrodes (comprising one of 230 and 232, Fig. 2 and 4) extends to the top plate (comprising 140, Fig. 2) (para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jennings all of the limitations of claim 1, 6 as applied above and Jennings further teaches each of plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 252, Fig. 2 and 4) extends at least to a distal portion (i.e. towards a bottom portion) of the tube adapter (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4). Examiner explains at least to a distal portion of the tube adapter is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to mean each insulative tube of the plurality of insulative tubes extends toward the bottom away from an attachment point of the tube adapter 218.
Regarding claim 11, modified Jennings all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and modified Jennings further teaches an interior (Jennings: comprising interior of 142, Fig. 2) of the substrate support assembly (Jennings: comprising 110, Fig. 1 modified in claim 1 to be an electrostatic static chuck assembly) has a higher pressure than an exterior (i.e. portion exposed to the vacuum chamber 102) of the electrostatic chuck/substrate support assembly (Jennings: para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jennings all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but is silent regarding the material of the tube adapter (Jennings: comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4) being made of aluminum or stainless steel.
However, Gomm further teaches a tube adapter (comprising adapter 220, Fig. 2-4) is made of an aluminum or aluminum alloy which is a material that is less likely to break under the high pressure differentials exerted thereon during processing (para. [0041]) wherein the processing is a plasma-based processing (para. [0017]-[0019]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material such as aluminum as the material of the tube adapter because Gomm teaches that such a material is a known suitable material for a tube adapter that is less likely to break under high pressure differentials exerted thereon during plasma-based processing (Gomm: para. [0041], [0017]-[0019]).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, modified Jennings all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach a bellows configured to move the electrostatic chuck assembly.
However, Zhao further teaches a bellows (not shown, discloses para. [0073]) attached to a bottom of a pedestal (comprising 31, Fig. 1A) configured with a motor to move the substrate support assembly wherein the bellows enables a movable gas-tight seal around the pedestal (comprising 31, Fig. 1A) wherein movement of the substrate support assembly enables raising and lowering the substrate support assembly to a desired height for loading the substrate (para. [0089]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a bellows configured (i.e. with a motor) to move the electrostatic chuck assembly because Zhao teaches such a configuration enables a gas-tight moveable seal of the assembly and wherein the movement of the assembly enables loading the substrate (Zhao: para.[0073], [0089]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”), Zhao et al. (US 2003/0051665 A1 hereinafter “Zhao”), Maki (IDS art JP 4034145 B2 and cited in parent 16/966833) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 above and further in view of Shih et al. (US 6,466,881 B1 hereinafter “Shih”).
Regarding claim 2, Jennings in view of Gomm, Zhao, Maki, Wu {hereinafter "modified Jennings"} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a dielectric coating, but does not explicitly teach wherein the dielectric coating is a hard-anodization coating.
However, Maki teaches that anodized coating or polyimide resin coating on a surface of a chuck component (comprising temperature control unit 27, Fig. 1) also prevents abnormal discharge (i.e. arcing) and thus reduce surface scratching (para. [0024]).
Additionally, Shih teaches that aluminum hard anodization coating (i.e. on pedestals/electrostatic chucks) is a widely used coating material in the semiconductor industry due to its properties of high corrosion resistance and surface micro-hardness, low cost low contamination levels, manufacturing capability, and ease of application (col 1 line 14-22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a hard-anodization coating as the dielectric coating because Maki already teaches/suggests an anodized coating prevents abnormal discharge which ultimately reduces surface scratchign (Maki: para. [0024]) and because Shih teaches a hard anodization coating is a known suitable material used in pedestal/chuck assemblies having high corrosion resistance and surface micro-hardness, low cost low contamination levels, manufacturing capability, and ease of application (Shih: col 1 line 14-22).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”), Zhao et al. (US 2003/0051665 A1 hereinafter “Zhao”), Maki (JP 4034145 B2) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 above and further in view of Chhatre et al. (US 2015/0179412 A1 hereinafter “Chhatre”).
Regarding claim 3, Jennings in view of Gomm, Zhao, Maki, Wu {hereinafter "modified Jennings"} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a dielectric coating, but does not explicitly teach wherein the dielectric coating is a polyimide coating.
However, Maki teaches that anodized coating or polyimide resin coating on a surface of a chuck component (comprising temperature control unit 27, Fig. 1) also prevents abnormal discharge (i.e. arcing) and thus reduce surface scratching (para. [0024]).
Additionally, Chhatre teaches an electrostatic chuck assembly (comprising 300, Fig. 1, bottom of para. [0022]) and teaches further motivation to select polyimide as a suitable insulating material because polyimide has the ability to maintain its physical, electrical, and mechanical properties over a wide temperature range in a plasma environment (para. [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polyimide material as a dielectric/insulating material for the dielectric coating because Maki already teaches/suggests polyimide is a suitable insulating/dielectric material used in chuck assemblies which can prevent arcing (Maki: para. [0024]) and because Chhatre teaches that polyimide is a material that is able to maintain its physical, electrical, and mechanical properties over a wide temperature range in a plasma environment (Chhatre: para. [0040]).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”), Zhao et al. (US 2003/0051665 A1 hereinafter “Zhao”), Maki (JP 4034145 B2) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 above and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2009/0314208 A1 hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 5, Jennings in view of Gomm, Zhao, Maki, Wu {hereinafter "modified Jennings"} teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 4 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the tube adapter portion is configured to be retrofit with the pedestal of an existing plasma-based processing system.
However, Zhou teaches configuring a pedestal to be retrofitted to replace original pedestals in existing chambers without extensive redesign and/or downtime (para. [0039]). In other words, Zhou teaches that designing a component to be retrofitted into an existing system can reduce the need for redesign and reduce extensive down time of the system.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tube adapter (Jennings: comprising 218, Fig. 2) to be retrofit with the pedestal of an existing plasma-based processing system because Zhou teaches that such a configuration enables reducing need for redesign and reduce down time of the system (Zhou: para. [0038]) resulting in reduced cost of operation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”), Zhao et al. (US 2003/0051665 A1 hereinafter “Zhao”), Maki (JP 4034145 B2) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2010/0163188 A1 hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 9, Jennings in view of Gomm, Zhao, Maki, Wu {hereinafter "modified Jennings"} teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the each of the plurality of insulative tubes extends below a lower portion of the tube adapter portion.
However, Tanaka teaches/suggests an electrostatic chuck assembly (comprising mounting table 58, Fig. 1, para. [0060]) including a tube adapter portion (comprising mounting block 92, Fig. 1 and 4, para. [0072]) including a plurality of insulative tubes (comprising insulating members 126, Fig. 4), each of the plurality of insulative tubes extends below a lower portion (comprising bottom plate 105, Fig. 4) of the tube adapter portion (comprising 92, Fig. 4) as a suitable configuration for electrically connected with the outside (para. [0078]).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that extending each of the insulative tubes below a lower portion of the tube adapter portion would constitute a rearrangement of parts.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange/configure each of the plurality of insulative tubes to extend below a lower portion of the tube adapter portion because Tanaka teaches/suggest such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of an electrostatic chuck assembly for providing an electrical connection to the outside of the electrostatic chuck assembly. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and 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). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Jennings teaches substrate support assembly (comprising substrate holder 110, Fig. 1, para. [0037], [0046]) ) comprising:
a top plate (comprising mesa 140, Fig. 2, para. [0037]) configured to support a substrate (comprising substrate 186, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0037]);
a pedestal (comprising column 142, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0037]) with a tube adapter portion(comprising feed through spool 218, Fig. 2, para. [0046]);
a plurality of insulative tubes (comprising dielectric material 252 shown as multiple tubes in Fig. 2 and 4) within the tube adapter portion (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4), each of the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising dielectric material 252 shown as multiple tubes in Fig. 2 and 4) configured to (i.e. capable of) receive one of RF signal electrodes (comprising inner electrode bus 230 and outer electrode bus 232, Fig. 2 and 4, para. [0048]; note: 230 and 232 are considered RF signal electrodes since they provide radio frequency power to inner electrode 112 and outer electrode 114, respectively, as understood from para. [0038],[0048], [0058],[0074]) to be enclosed therein (para. [0048]); and
each of the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 252, Fig. 2 and 4) extends at least to a distal end (i.e. an area/region at a boundary) of the tube adapter portion. See annotated Fig. 2 below;
the substrate support assembly (comprising 110, Fig. 1) is configured to be operated in a plasma-based processing system (comprising substrate process chamber 100, Fig. 1, para. [0031]-[0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jennings is silent regarding the substrate support assembly being an electrostatic chuck.
Examiner notes that Jennings teaches the substrate support assembly is configured to hold a semiconductor substrate (para. [0031], claim 8).
Additionally, Gomm teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising pedestal module 320, Fig. 1, 2) configured as an electrostatic chuck assembly which is a known suitable supporting configuration for electrostatically clamping a semiconductor substrate (para. [0018], [0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate support assembly to be an electrostatic chuck assembly because Jennings already teaches the substrate support is configured to hold a semiconductor substrate and because Gomm teaches that an electrostatic chuck assembly is a known suitable substrate holder configuration which would enable electrostatically clamping a semiconductor substrate (Gomm: para. [0018], [0028]).
Regarding limitation “each of the plurality of insulative tubes being configured to prevent arcing between the respective one of the RF signal electrodes enclosed therein and a main body of the tube adapter portion during operation of the plasma-based processing system,” these are intended use/functional limitations. Since Jennings teaches all of the structural limitations and additionally teaches that the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising dielectric material 252, Fig. 2 and 4) is configured to electrically isolate the high voltage electrodes (230 and 232, Fig. 2 and 4) from the tube adapter portion (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4, para. [0048]), the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II
Regarding claim 15, Jennings in view of Gomm taches all of the limitations of claim 14 as applied above including a tube adapter portion comprising a plurality of insulative tubes, but does not explicitly teach that the plurality of insulative tubes have a dielectric strength that is substantially consistent in time in the presence of elevated temperatures encountered during an operation of the plasma-based processing system.
However, Jennings teaches that the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 252, Fig. 2 and 4) are part of a plasma-based processing system (comprising substrate process chamber 100, Fig. 1, para. [0031]-[0032]) and that the function of the insulative tubes is to electrically isolate the high voltage electrodes (comprising 230 and 232, Fig. 2 and 4 ) from the tube adapter (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material of the plurality of insulative tubes to be suitable to withstand operating conditions including the temperatures of a plasma-based processing system (i.e. meet limitation "have a dielectric strength that is substantially consistent in time in the presence of elevated temperatures encountered during an operation of the plasma-based processing system") to ensure that the plurality of insulative tubes can consistent electrically isolate the high voltage electrodes from the tube adapter throughout operation of the plasma-based processing system.
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”) as applied above in claim 14, 15 and further in view of Lind (US 2014/0087587 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Jennings in view of Gomm teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as applied above including a tube adapter portion comprising a plurality of insulative tubes (Jennings: comprising 252, Fig. 2 and 4), but does not explicitly teach a thermal choke coupled on a first side to each of the plurality of insulative tubes, and a conductive rod coupled to a second side to each of the thermal chokes.
Note: examiner interprets limitation “thermal choke” under broadest reasonable interpretation as a part or constriction capable of reducing thermal transfer.
However, Lind teaches a conductive rod (comprising electrode rod 210, Fig. 2B, para. [0045]) coupled to a thermal choke (comprising narrow end of 210 and multi-contact socket 240, Fig. 2B) wherein the thermal choke (comprising narrow end of 210 and multi-contact socket 240, Fig. B, para. [0063]) is surrounded by insulative tubes/ceramic tubes (para. [0063]). Lind, further teaches material selection and design features of components of the chuck assembly (pedestal 100, Fig. 1A-2B) can be configured to step down thermal conductivity to reduce the transfer of heat to components outside of the chuck assembly (100, Fig. 1A-2B)(para. [0054]) and the conductive rod (210, Fig. 2B) material and physical configuration can be designed to reduce temperature at the electrical socket end of the rod (210, Fig. 2B). Examiner provides annotated Fig. 1K of Lind. Examiner bases annotations of 1K on Lind para. [0063] as well as comparison of the other figures in Lind reference.
See annotated Fig. 1K of Lind below.
PNG
media_image2.png
976
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a thermal choke coupled on a first side (i.e. lower part of the thermal choke) to each of the plurality of insulative tubes (Jennings: 252, Fig. 2 and 4) and a conductive rod coupled to a second side (i.e. upper part of the thermal choke) to each of the thermal chokes because Lind teaches this is a known suitable alternative configuration of an electrical connection assembly in a chuck assembly which would enable suitable electrical connections while also reducing the transfer of heat to an outside of the assembly and reducing the temperature of the electrode/conductive rod at the electrical socket/connection point to an electrical lead (Lind: para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Jennings in view of Gomm teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as applied above including a tube adapter portion (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4) comprising a plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 252, Fig. 2 and 4), but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of insulative tubes is held in place and separated from remaining ones of the insulative tubes by a separator sleeve.
However, Lind teaches high temperature electrode connections (title) comprising a plurality of insulative tubes (i.e. ceramic tubes, not shown but disclosed in para. [0063]) wherein the plurality of insulative tubes (i.e. ceramic tubes) are retained/held in place by a retainer (i.e. “separator sleeve”).
Further, recall that Jennings teaches that the plurality of insulative tubes (comprising 252, Fig. 2 and 4) surrounds and isolates high voltage electrodes (comprising inner electrode bus 230 and outer electrode bus 232, Fig. 2 and 4, para. [0048]) from the tube adapter (comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4, para. [0048]), wherein Fig. 4 appears to show the insulative tubes (252) separated from each other.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a retainer configured to hold/support the plurality of insulative tubes and configure the retainer to have a sleeve shape to conform with the shape of the plurality of insulative tubes because Lind teaches that such a configuration enables securely holding the plurality of insulative tubes in the tube adapter. Furthermore, it would be obvious to configure the retainer/sleeve to separate each of the plurality of insulative tubes from remaining ones of the insulative tubes in light of Fig. 4 of Jennings showing separated insulative tubes (252, Fig. 4) and additionally to enable aligning/positioning each high voltage electrode held within each insulative tube.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”) and Lind (US 2014/0087587 A1) as applied to claims 16, 17 and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0002779 A1 hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 18, see U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for discussion regarding claim interpretation, Jennings in view of Gomm and Lind teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 17 as applied above including a separator sleeve (see teachings of Lind), but does not explicitly teach wherein the separator sleeve further comprises a plurality of separator sleeves wherein each of the separator sleeves is sized to remove and receive each of the plurality of insulative tubes during repair operations or maintenance operations of the ESC assembly.
However, Lind teaches the concept of designing high temperature electrode connection assembly for easy and reliable assembly and disassembly during periodic maintenance procedures (para. [0068]).
Additionally, Lin teaches a separator sleeve (dielectric insert comprising 320, Fig. 5) can be a monolithic (comprising 400A or 400B, Fig. 4A and 4B, para. [0044]) or can have a plurality of portions/plurality of separator sleeves (comprising 400C comprising plurality of dielectric sections 435, Fig. 4C, para. [0045]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of separator sleeves and to configure each of the separator sleeves to be sized to remove and receive each of the plurality of insulative tubes during repair operations or maintenance operations of the ESC (i.e. designed for easy of assembly and disassembly) because Lind teaches/suggest designing a separator sleeve to enable separating/isolating components within an assembly and enable easy of disassembly and reassembly during periodic maintenance and because Lin teaches/suggests providing a plurality of separator sleeves as an obvious alternative to providing a single sleeve. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing a plurality of separators sleeves would constitute a duplication of parts wherein the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.)
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”) and Lind (US 2014/0087587 A1) as applied to claims 16, 17 and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0002779 A1 hereinafter “Lin”) and Schwartz et al. (IDS art: NPL reference published in 2016: Encyclopedia and Handbook of Materials, Parts, and Finishes (3rd Edition) Glass-Ceramics hereinafter “Schwartz”).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, see U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for discussion regarding claim interpretation, Jennings in view of Gomm and Lind teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 17 as applied above including a separator sleeve (see teachings of Lind), but does not explicitly teach:
Regarding claim 19, wherein the separator sleeve further comprises a plurality of separator sleeves wherein each of the separator sleeves is a non-conducting ceramic material
Regarding claim 20, wherein the separator sleeve further comprises a plurality of separator sleeves wherein each of the separator sleeves is a machinable glass-ceramic material.
However, Lin teaches a separator sleeve (dielectric insert comprising 320, Fig. 5) can be a monolithic (comprising 400A or 400B, Fig. 4A and 4B, para. [0044]) or can have a plurality of portions/plurality of separator sleeves (comprising 400C comprising plurality of dielectric sections 435, Fig. 4C, para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of separator sleeves because Lin teaches this as a known suitable alterative configuration of a separator sleeve which would enable separating/isolating components within an assembly.
Jennings in view of Gomm, Lin and Lin as applied above do not explicitly teach that each of the separator sleeves: regarding claim 19, is a non-conducting ceramic material; regarding claim 20, is a machinable glass-ceramic material.
However, recall Jennings teaches that the plurality of insulative tubes (252, Fig. 2 and 4) electrically isolate the high voltage/frequency electrodes (230 and 232, Fig. 4) from the tube adapter (218, Fig. 2 and 4) Further, recall Lind teaches the separator sleeve (retainer, para. [0063]) is configured to retain the plurality of insulative tubes (Lind: para. [0063]).
Additionally, Schwartz teaches (page 391 under the section of “Glass-Ceramics”) that glass-ceramic are electrical insulators and suitable for high-temperature, high-frequency applications. Schwartz additionally provides an example of a machinable glass-ceramic as Macor which is also chemically inert and light weight.
Regarding claim 19 and claim 20 respectively, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a non-conducting ceramic material such as a machinable glass-ceramic material, and more specifically a material such as Macor as the material for each separator sleeve because Schwartz teaches that such a material is a known material suitable for high-temperature and high-frequency applications which is also chemically inert and light weight (Schwartz: page 391 under the section of “Glass-Ceramics”).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”) as applied to claims 14, 15 above and further in view of Herchen (US 6,072,685) and Chhatre et al. (US 2015/0179412 A1 hereinafter “Chhatre”).
Regarding claim 21, Jennings in view of Gomm teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 as applied above including a plurality of insulative tubes but does not explicitly teach that the insulative tubes comprise a polyimide material.
However, Herchen teaches an electrostatic chuck assembly (comprising 20, Fig. 2, abstract) including an insulative sleeve (comprising housing 70 including insulator plate 160, Fig. 2) comprising polyimide (col 7 line 17) surrounding an electrical conductor/electrode (comprising electrical conductor 65, Fig. 2) wherein Herchen teaches that polyimide is insulating and is resistant to damage to thermal stresses (col 7 line 6-18, col 6 line 41-45).
Additionally, Chhatre teaches an electrostatic chuck assembly (comprising 300, Fig. 1, bottom of para. [0022]) and teaches further motivation to select polyimide as a suitable insulating material because polyimide has the ability to maintain its physical, electrical, and mechanical properties over a wide temperature range in a plasma environment (para. [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polyimide material as a dielectric/insulating material for the insulative sleeves (Jennings: 252, Fig. 2 and 4) because polyimide is a known suitable insulating material used in electrostatic chuck electrical connection assemblies which is resistant to thermal stresses (Herchen: col 7 line 6-18, col 6 line 41-45) and is able to maintain its physical, electrical, and mechanical properties over a wide temperature range in a plasma environment (Chhatre: para. [0040]).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”) as applied to claims 14, 15 above and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2003/0051665 A1 hereinafter “Zhao”) and Maki (IDS art JP 4034145 B2 and cited in parent 16/966833)).
Regarding claim 22, Jennings in view of Gomm teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 above as applied above but does not explicitly teach a dielectric coating formed on an inner surface of the tube adapter portion configured to prevent arcing between high voltage electrodes within the tube adapter portion and a main body of the tube adapter portion during an operation of the plasma-based processing system.
However, Zhao teaches providing dielectric/ceramic plug (comprising 862, Fig. 8B) in a tube adapter portion (comprising shaft 861, Fig. 8B) to suppress arcing between RF electrode rod (856, Fig. 8B-8C) and other conductors (para. [0118]-[0119]).
Additionally, Maki teaches that anodized coating or polyimide resin coating on a surface of a chuck component (comprising temperature control unit 27, Fig. 1) also prevents abnormal discharge (i.e. arcing) and thus reduce surface scratching (para. [0024]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a dielectric coating inside the tube adapter portion (Jennings: comprising 218, Fig. 2 and 4) configured to prevent arcing between high voltage electrodes within the adapter portion and a main body of the tube adapter portion during an operation of the plasma-based processing system because Zhao teaches teaches/suggests providing a dielectric material in a tube adapter to prevent abnormal discharge/arcing during normal operation of the apparatus (Zhao: para. [0118]-[0119], [0024]) and Maki teaches/suggests that a dielectric coating that prevents arcing/abnormal discharge reduces surface scratching/potential damage to the chuck assembly (Maki: para. [0024]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings et al. (US 2012/0164834 A1 hereinafter “Jennings”) in view of Gomm et al. (US 2016/0336213 A1 hereinafter “Gomm”) as applied to claims 14, 15 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2010/0163188 A1 hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 24, Jennings in view of Gomm teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 above as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the each of the plurality of insulative tubes extends below a lower portion of the tube adapter portion.
However, Tanaka teaches/suggests an electrostatic chuck assembly (comprising mounting table 58, Fig. 1, para. [0060]) including a tube adapter portion (comprising mounting block 92, Fig. 1 and 4, para. [0072]) including a plurality of insulative tubes (comprising insulating members 126, Fig. 4), each of the plurality of insulative tubes extends below a lower portion (comprising bottom plate 105, Fig. 4) of the tube adapter portion (comprising 92, Fig. 4) as a suitable configuration for electrically connected with the outside (para. [0078]).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that extending each of the insulative tubes below a lower portion of the tube adapter portion would constitute a rearrangement of parts.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange/configure each of the plurality of insulative tubes to extend below a lower portion of the tube adapter portion because Tanaka teaches/suggest such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of an electrostatic chuck assembly for providing an electrical connection to the outside of the electrostatic chuck assembly. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and 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). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2005/0274324 A1) in view of Maki (IDS art JP 4034145 B2 and cited in parent 16/966833)) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding independent claim 1 Takahashi teaches an electrostatic chuck (ESC) assembly (comprising susceptor 4 and mounting unit 42, Fig. 1, para. [0017]-[0019]) comprising:
a top plate (comprising dielectric plate 43, Fig. 1) configured to support a substrate (comprising wafer W, Fig. 1, para. [0018]);
a pedestal (comprising aluminum cylindrical support portion 41, Fig. 1, apra. [0018]); and
a tube adapter (comprising cylindrical part 51, Fig. 1, para. [0020]) comprising a dielectric coating (comprising shaft 5 of dielectric material, Fig. 1, para. [0020]) formed on a portion of an inner surface of the tube adapter (comprising 51, Fig. 1),
operation of a plasma-based processing system (comprising processing chamber 2, Fig. 1, para. [0016]).
Takahashi as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach that the dielectric coating is configured to prevent arcing within the tube adapter during an operation of a plasma-based processing system, wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient-of-thermal-expansion (CTE) that is selected to prevent particle shedding due to changes in a thermal environment in which the tube adapter operates.
However, Maki teaches that anodized coating or polyimide resin coating on a surface of a chuck component (comprising temperature control unit 27, Fig. 1) also prevents abnormal discharge (i.e. arcing) and thus reduce surface scratching (para. [0024]).
Additionally, Wu teaches a protective coating selected to have a thermal coefficient of expansion to sufficiently match or be compatible with the object on which it is coated to avoid cracking or the inducement of mechanical stresses in the underlying object (col 3 line 43-54).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the dielectric coating to prevent arcing within the tube adapter during an operation of a plasma-based processing system and to select a dielectric coating material having a coefficient-of-thermal-expansion (CTE) that is substantially similar to a material from which the tube adapter portion is formed because Maki teaches/suggests that a dielectric coating that prevents arcing/abnormal discharge reduces surface scratching (Maki: para. [0024]) and Wu further teaches that selection of a coating having thermal coefficient of expansion to sufficiently match or be compatible with the object on which it is coated enables avoiding cracking or inducement of mechanical stress (Wu: col 3 line 43-54).
Since Wu teaches a selecting a material of a protective coating to have a thermal coefficient of expansion to sufficiently match or be compatible with the object on which it is coated to avoid cracking or the inducement of mechanical stresses in the underlying object (Wu: col 3 line 43-54) limitation “wherein the CTE for the dielectric coating is selected to prevent particle shedding due to changes in a thermal environment in which the tube adapter operates” would obviously be met.
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable) Takahashi (US 2005/0274324 A1) in view of Maki (IDS art JP 4034145 B2 and cited in parent 16/966833) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shih et al. (US 6,466,881 B1 hereinafter “Shih”).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi in view of Maki and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) above including a dielectric coating, but does not explicitly teach wherein the dielectric coating is a hard-anodization coating.
However, Maki teaches that anodized coating or polyimide resin coating on a surface of a chuck component (comprising temperature control unit 27, Fig. 1) also prevents abnormal discharge (i.e. arcing) and thus reduce surface scratching (para. [0024]).
Additionally, Shih teaches that aluminum hard anodization coating (i.e. on pedestals/electrostatic chucks) is a widely used coating material in the semiconductor industry due to its properties of high corrosion resistance and surface micro-hardness, low-cost low contamination levels, manufacturing capability, and ease of application (col 1 line 14-22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a hard-anodization coating as the dielectric coating because Maki teaches anodized coating can prevent discharge and surface scratching (para. [0024]) and because Shih teaches a hard anodization coating is a known suitable material used in pedestal/chuck assemblies having high corrosion resistance and surface micro-hardness, low cost low contamination levels, manufacturing capability, and ease of application (Shih: col 1 line 14-22).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable) Takahashi (US 2005/0274324 A1) in view of Maki (IDS art JP 4034145 B2 and cited in parent 16/966833) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chhatre et al. (US 2015/0179412 A1 hereinafter “Chhatre”).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi in view of Maki and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above including a dielectric coating, but does not explicitly teach wherein the dielectric coating is a polyimide coating.
However, Maki teaches that anodized coating or polyimide resin coating on a surface of a chuck component (comprising temperature control unit 27, Fig. 1) also prevents abnormal discharge (i.e. arcing) and thus reduce surface scratching (para. [0024]).
Additionally, Chhatre teaches an electrostatic chuck assembly (comprising 300, Fig. 1, bottom of para. [0022]) and teaches further motivation to select polyimide as a suitable insulating material because polyimide has the ability to maintain its physical, electrical, and mechanical properties over a wide temperature range in a plasma environment (para. [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polyimide material as a dielectric/insulating material for the dielectric coating because polyimide is a known suitable insulating/dielectric material used in chuck assemblies which can prevent arcing (Maki: para. [0024]) and is a material that is able to maintain its physical, electrical, and mechanical properties over a wide temperature range in a plasma environment (Chhatre: para. [0040]).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable) Takahashi (US 2005/0274324 A1) in view of Maki (IDS art JP 4034145 B2 and cited in parent 16/966833) and Wu et al. (US 5,560,780 hereinafter “Wu”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2003/0051665 A1 hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi in view of Maki and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above.
Takahashi further teaches heater wires (comprising conductive member 46 and 47 for supplying power to the heater 45, Fig. 2B) in the tube adapter (comprising 126 having coating 5, Fig. 2B) para. [0022]).
Takahashi is silent regarding AC (i.e. alternating current).
However, Zhao teaches that applying AC power/current is a suitable current configuration for supplying power to a heater (comprising heater element 211, Fig. 14) in a substrate support assembly (comprising heater assembly 202, Fig. 14) (para. [0154]-[0155]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the heater wires (Takahashi: comprising 46 and 47, Fig. 2B) to be AC heater wires because Zhao teaches that AC current configuration is a known suitable power/current configuration for supplying power to heater in a substrate support assembly (Takahashi: para. [0155]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716