DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) were submitted on 07/30/2024 and 08/19/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 14-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shu (US 20130100573 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shu teaches a substrate processing system (abstract, An apparatus and a method for holding a wafer), comprising:
a pedestal (i.e. electrostatic chuck 201-801, figs.4-11) to support a substrate ([0035], Electrostatic chuck 201 serves to hold a wafer), the pedestal having a plurality of chucking regions ([0035], Coulomb force or Johnsen-Rahbek force can be generated between the wafer and electrodes in electrostatic chuck 201 to fix or chuck the wafer);
a warpage detection system (i.e. wafer flatness measuring unit 230, 730, figs.4, 7) having one or more sensors ([0049], The wafer flatness measuring unit 230 may be an optical scanning device, a stress monitor device, or an optical interferometer) to detect warpage of the substrate ([0049], the wafer flatness measuring unit 230 is configured to measure flatness, warpage, and profile of a wafer); and
a plurality of adjustable chucking components ([0031], the control unit 103 is adapted to control each of the plurality of power supply units independently to start or stop applying the voltage to a corresponding zone of the electrostatic chuck) disposed in the pedestal corresponding with the plurality of chucking regions (e.g. zones 302-802, figs.5-11), wherein the plurality of adjustable chucking components are configured to facilitate applying different amounts of force ([0047], voltages V1.about.Vn may be supplied to the plurality of zones of the electrostatic chuck independently by the plurality of power supply units 212, and each of the plurality of zones may generate Coulomb force if it is a Coulomb chuck or Johnsen-Rahbek force if it is a J-R chuck), heating, or cooling to the substrate based on the warpage of the substrate ([0047], so that a warped wafer may be held by the electrostatic chuck tightly and be flattened).
Regarding claim 2, Shu teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of adjustable chucking components comprises at least one of a chucking electrode ([0047], each of the plurality of zones may generate Coulomb force if it is a Coulomb chuck or Johnsen-Rahbek force if it is a J-R chuck, so that a warped wafer may be held by the electrostatic chuck tightly and be flattened).
Regarding claim 3, Shu teaches the substrate processing system of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of adjustable chucking components comprise at least one of:
a chucking electrode ([0047], each of the plurality of zones may generate Coulomb force if it is a Coulomb chuck or Johnsen-Rahbek force if it is a J-R chuck), and wherein the pedestal includes electrical isolators disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of chucking regions (abstract, each of which is adapted to apply a voltage to the plurality of zones of the electrostatic chuck independently) (it is necessarily true that for an independent control, the zones are electrically isolated).
Regarding claim 6, Shu teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the warpage detection system comprises an optical detection system disposed above the pedestal ([0050], the optical interferometer measures the wafer front surface).
Regarding claim 7, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Shu teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that ([0028], a storage medium 25 connected to the processor 24), when executed via one or more processors ([0028], a processor 24 configured to control the voltage supplies), causes the method of chucking the bowed substrate of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 15, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Shu teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the substrate support does not apply force to the bowed substrate at the contact regions ([0033], start or stop applying a voltage to the relevant zone) ([0053], select a power supply mode which matches with the flatness data to start or stop applying a voltage to a corresponding zone).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (US 20130100573 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shu teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1.
Shu does not teach, wherein the plurality of chucking regions are pie shaped.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have pie shaped plurality of chucking region, since the applicant has not disclosed that pie shape solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the plurality of chucking regions are pie shaped, as it provides the advantage of optimal design.
Regarding claim 12, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, Shu teaches the method of claim 15.
Shu does not teach, wherein applying cooling comprises cooling the bowed substrate with liquid nitrogen.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have cooling the bowed substrate with liquid nitrogen, since the applicant has not disclosed that liquid nitrogen solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the cooling of the bowed substrate with liquid nitrogen, as it provides the advantage of optimal design.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (US 20130100573 A1), and further in view of Okujo (US 20130052756 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shu teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1.
Shu does not teach, wherein the warpage detection system comprises a plurality of displacement sensors disposed in the pedestal, wherein each of the plurality of chucking regions includes at least one displacement sensor.
Okujo teaches in a similar field of endeavor of wafer warpage detecting part, a warpage detection system (e.g. system comprising laser displacement meters 63a, 63b, fig.2) comprises a plurality of displacement sensors (i.e. laser displacement meters 63a, 63b, fig.2) disposed in the pedestal ([0036], the base unit 26 houses a plurality of radiation thermometer 62 and two laser displacement meters 63a, 63b), wherein each of the plurality of chucking regions includes at least one displacement sensor ([0038] The laser displacement meter 63a is arranged opposite to the center portion of the back surface 40b of the wafer 40 … The laser displacement meter 63b is arranged opposite to the outer periphery of the back surface 40b of the wafer 40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the warpage detection system comprises a plurality of displacement sensors disposed in the pedestal, wherein each of the plurality of chucking regions includes at least one displacement sensor in Shu, as taught by Okujo, as it provides the advantage of detecting warpage using displacement height of the wafer, which ensures accurate feedback for warpage control, in addition to top surface warpage measurements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (US 20130100573 A1), and further in view of Lew (US 20160322234 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Shu teaches the method of claim 7.
Shu does not teach, wherein applying heating or cooling comprises providing non-uniform heating or non-uniform cooling to the bowed substrate via a heater or cooling channels disposed in the substrate support.
Lew teaches in a similar field of endeavor of correcting substrate deformity, applying heating comprises providing non-uniform heating to the bowed substrate ([0034], to planarize a warped substrate 305a… the first heater 322a is activated to heat the first substrate support 306a to a first predetermined temperature … between about 150° C. to about 220° C) ([0035], the fourth predetermined temperature is about 130° C) via a heater disposed in the substrate support ([0034], the first heater 322a is activated to heat the first substrate support 306a).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the applying heating or cooling comprises providing non-uniform heating or non-uniform cooling to the bowed substrate via a heater or cooling channels disposed in the substrate support in Shu, as taught by Lew, as it provides the advantage of planarizing a warped surface, in addition to electrostatic forces.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (US 20130100573 A1), and further in view of Wu (US 20150155196 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Shu teaches the method of claim 7.
Shu does not teach, wherein applying the force comprises applying a physical force on the bowed substrate via a plurality of pushers.
Wu teaches in a similar field of endeavor of bowed wafers, applying a physical force on the bowed substrate ([0030] pusher tip 417 is arranged to press on a wafer 150 near its perimeter 154) via a plurality of pushers ([0029], pusher tip 417 includes a circular or polygonal arrangement of pusher bars 415. The bars can be connected as shown in FIG. 8, or disconnected).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the force comprises applying a physical force on the bowed substrate via a plurality of pushers in Shu, as taught by Wu, as it provides the advantage of planarizing a warped surface, in addition to electrostatic forces.
Regarding claim 19, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 11.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (US 20130100573 A1), and further in view of Yang (US 20180122680 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Shu teaches the method of claim 7.
Shu does not teach, further comprising:
subsequent to applying the force, heating, or cooling on the bowed substrate, detecting, with the warpage detection system, remaining non-contact regions of the plurality of chucking regions; and
applying additional force, heating, or cooling to the bowed substrate at the remaining non-contact regions.
Yang teaches in a similar field of endeavor of electrostatic chuck assembly for uniformly chucking (fixing) a wafer despite warpage of the wafer, subsequent to applying the force ([0131], An operation of adjusting the electrostatic voltage applied to the electrostatic chuck 101 or 101-1 based on the primarily measured warpage), heating, or cooling on the bowed substrate, detecting, with the warpage detection system, remaining non-contact regions of the plurality of chucking regions ([0131], secondary measurement of the warpage of the wafer is performed using the warpage measuring unit 245); and
applying additional force, heating, or cooling to the bowed substrate at the remaining non-contact regions ([0132], adjusting the electrostatic voltage applied to the electrostatic chuck 101 or 101-1 based on the secondarily measured warpage).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the subsequent to applying the force, heating, or cooling on the bowed substrate, detecting, with the warpage detection system , remaining non-contact regions of the plurality of chucking regions; and applying additional force, heating, or cooling to the bowed substrate at the remaining non-contact regions in Shu, as taught by Yang, as it provides the advantage of planarizing a warped surface more thoroughly, in addition to initial electrostatic forces.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (US 20130100573 A1), and further in view of Ryan (US 20020137330 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Shu teaches the method of claim 15.
Shu does not teach, wherein the bowed substrate comprises a silicon substrate having copper interconnects.
Ryan teaches in a similar field of endeavor of fabrication, a silicon substrate having copper interconnects ([0009], A typical semiconductor with copper metallization includes a copper metallization film directly deposited onto a patterned insulating film, such as SiO.sub.2 film, which is deposited on a silicon substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the bowed substrate comprises a silicon substrate having copper interconnects in Shu, as taught by Ryan, as it provides the advantage of optimal design for conventional fabrication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 01/20/2026