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 1-17 are pending
Claim 8 has been amended
Claims 7, 10, and 12 have been withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B, the electrical/proximity/capacitive/impedance sensing species in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the claimed sensor species are similarly positioned in the substrate support below the edge ring and that a search directed to Species B for sensors monitoring the edge ring would likely reveal sensors corresponding to Species A and Species C, such that examination of the additional species would not impose an undue search burden.
This is not found persuasive because the common location and purpose of the sensors do not eliminate the materially different sensing principles and corresponding fields of search presented by the respective species. Species A employs mechanical displacement/deflection sensing, including flexible-member deflection, dimensional change, and mechanical movement of a sensor component; Species B employs electrical/proximity/capacitive/impedance sensing, including electrode-based sensing, capacitance measurement, impedance measurement, and equivalent-circuit modeling; and Species C employs acoustic/ultrasonic sensing, including acoustic-wave propagation, resonance or natural-frequency/phase characteristics, and time-of-flight measurement. Searching one such sensing modality would not reasonably encompass the different structures, operating principles, terminology, and search fields required for the other modalities. Accordingly, examination of all three species would continue to impose a serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7, 10, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the election requirement in the reply filed on 08/21/2026.
Claim 7 is directed to the nonelected mechanical displacement/deflection sensing species (Species A), including a flexible member whose deflection corresponds to the edge-ring metric.
Claims 10 and 12 are directed to the nonelected acoustic/ultrasonic sensing species (Species C), including coupling an acoustic wave to the edge ring and measuring time of flight of an acoustic wave through the edge ring, respectively.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “proximate an outer periphery of the substrate support assembly, the substrate support assembly, the edge ring having an upper surface.” The first or second “the substrate support assembly “ appears to be a duplicate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because claim 15 recites “a second electrode coupling the edge ring to the communication.” The recitation appears to omit the word “circuit” after “communication.” For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting “a second electrode coupling the edge ring to the communication circuit.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the ring sensor is an impedance ring sensor.” However, independent claim 1 recites “one or more ring sensors.” It is unclear whether “the ring sensor” in claim 8 requires each of the one or more ring sensors recited in claim 1 to be an impedance ring sensor or requires only one of the one or more ring sensors to be an impedance ring sensor. Accordingly, the scope of claim 8 is unclear.
For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as requiring at least one of the one or more ring sensors recited in claim 1 to be an impedance ring sensor.
Applicant may clarify the scope of claim 8 by amending the claim to recite, for example, “wherein at least one of the one or more ring sensors is an impedance ring sensor,” if that is the intended scope. Alternatively, if Applicant intends all of the ring sensors to be impedance ring sensors, the claim could be amended to recite “wherein each of the one or more ring sensors is an impedance ring sensor.”
Claim 13 recites “a second electrode coupling the edge ring to the communication circuit further comprising, wherein the method further comprises.” However, it is unclear what the communication circuit is intended to further comprise because the claim immediately recites “wherein the method further comprises.” The claim therefore does not clearly establish whether additional structure of the communication circuit is being recited or whether “further comprising” is unintended language.
Claim 13 further recites an equivalent circuit model that includes “a first electrode coupling the edge ring to a communication circuit and a second electrode coupling the edge ring to a communication circuit.” However, the claim previously recites a first electrode and a second electrode coupled to the communication circuit. It is unclear whether the later-recited “a first electrode” and “a second electrode” refer to the previously recited electrodes or to additional first and second electrodes. Accordingly, the scope of claim 13 is unclear.
For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as requiring the edge ring to have the previously recited first and second electrodes coupled to the communication circuit, and as further requiring determining an impedance of the edge ring using an equivalent circuit model that includes the edge ring and those same first and second electrodes.
Applicant may clarify claim 13 by amending the claim, for example, to recite:
“The method of claim 8, wherein the edge ring has a first electrode coupling the edge ring to a communication circuit and a second electrode coupling the edge ring to the communication circuit, wherein the method further comprises: determining an impedance of the edge ring by utilizing an equivalent circuit model that includes the edge ring, the first electrode, and the second electrode.”
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and therefore includes the indefiniteness discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Claim 14 further recites “the impedances of an overall circuit is directly proportional to a thickness of edge ring.” However, it is unclear what is meant by “an overall circuit.” Claim 13 recites both a communication circuit and an equivalent circuit model, and claim 14 does not identify which, if either, is intended to correspond to the “overall circuit.” Further, the plural term “impedances” is inconsistent with the singular recitation “an overall circuit” and the singular verb “is.” Accordingly, the scope of claim 14 is unclear.
For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted as requiring that the impedance of the equivalent circuit model recited in claim 13 is directly proportional to a thickness of the edge ring.
Applicant may clarify claim 14 by amending the claim, for example, to recite:
“The method of claim 13, wherein the impedance of the equivalent circuit model is directly proportional to a thickness of the edge ring.”
Claims 9, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 8 and therefore incorporate the indefinite limitation discussed above, and none of those claims cures the indefiniteness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. (US 2018/0315640 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda teaches a method of processing a substrate comprising plasma processing a substrate disposed on a substrate support assembly (plasma processing apparatus 10 includes processing chamber 1 defining a processing space where plasma is generated, first mounting table 2 supporting wafer W, and second mounting table 7 provided around an outer peripheral surface of first mounting table 2, wherein first mounting table 2 and second mounting table 7 together correspond to the claimed substrate support assembly; Ueda, paragraphs [0022]-[0026]; further teaching plasma generation within the processing space; paragraph [0034]).
Ueda teaches the substrate support assembly having an edge ring disposed on a top surface proximate an outer periphery of the substrate support assembly, the edge ring having an upper surface (second mounting table 7 is provided around an outer peripheral surface of first mounting table 2 and has an upper surface serving as mounting surface 9d on which annular focus ring 5 is mounted; Ueda, paragraph [0026]; further referring to the upper surface of focus ring 5; paragraph [0050]).
Ueda teaches acquiring a metric of the edge ring utilizing one or more ring sensors disposed below the top surface, wherein the metric corresponds to a displacement of the edge ring (measuring unit 110 measures the height of the upper surface of focus ring 5 using interference of laser light, wherein light-emitting part 110a is positioned below second mounting table 7; Ueda, paragraph [0050]; measurement control unit 114 measures distance based on the interference state of laser light reflected from focus ring 5; paragraphs [0052]-[0053]). Ueda further teaches measuring the thickness of focus ring 5 from the reflected-light measurement and outputting the measurement result to control unit 90 (Ueda, paragraph [0055]).
Ueda teaches adjusting a height of the edge ring based on the metric (measurement control unit 114 outputs the measured focus-ring thickness to control unit 90, which drives elevation mechanisms 120 based on the measurement result so that the upper surface of focus ring 5 is maintained at a predetermined height; control unit 90 determines a consumption amount from the measured thickness and raises second mounting table 7 by a distance corresponding to the consumption amount; Ueda, paragraph [0059]). Ueda further teaches that, as focus ring 5 is consumed, the upper surface changes in height, the apparatus measures the height of the upper surface using measuring unit 110, and the second mounting table is raised based on the measured consumption amount (Ueda, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ueda further teaches wherein the metric is indicative of erosion of the top surface of the edge ring (as wafer processing is performed, focus ring 5 is consumed, including consumption of the upper surface of focus ring 5, and measuring unit 110 measures the height of the upper surface to determine the consumption amount of focus ring 5; Ueda, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ueda further teaches wherein the one or more ring sensors are equidistantly oriented (three measuring units 110 are arranged on second mounting table 7 at regular intervals in a circumferential direction, wherein measuring units 110 are disposed at intervals of 120° in the circumferential direction of second mounting table 7; Ueda, paragraph [0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kenworthy (US 2017/0133283 A1), and further in view of Hoffmann, An Introduction to Stress Analysis using Strain Gauges.
Regarding claim 3, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ueda does not expressly teach wherein acquiring the metric is based in part upon a change in a dimension of at least a part of the one or more ring sensors.
Kenworthy teaches acquiring an edge-ring metric using a force-responsive sensor disposed below the edge ring (scales 172 are positioned below edge ring 160, with scale rods 168 positioned between scales 172 and edge ring 160; Kenworthy, paragraph [0017]). Kenworthy further teaches that scale 172 may be a piezo transducer that outputs an electrical signal proportional to the weight of edge ring 160, wherein erosion of edge ring 160 changes the force applied to scale 172 and the resulting measurement is used to determine edge-ring wear and adjustment (Kenworthy, paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda’s method to use Kenworthy’s force-responsive edge-ring sensing arrangement because Kenworthy teaches sensing edge-ring wear using a sensor positioned below the edge ring and using the resulting measurement to determine adjustment of the edge ring. Such a modification would have predictably provided an alternative in-situ technique for acquiring an edge-ring condition metric. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Modified Ueda does not expressly teach wherein acquiring the metric is based in part upon a change in a dimension of at least a part of the one or more ring sensors.
Hoffmann teaches acquiring a sensor measurement based in part upon a change in a dimension of the sensing element (teaching a capacitive strain gauge in which the separation between capacitor plates changes depending on the strain to be measured; Hoffmann, page 9, section 1.0.4). Hoffmann further teaches that strain transferred to a strain gauge causes deformation of the sensing element and that strain is defined based on a change in length Δl relative to a reference length l0 (Hoffmann, pages 12-19, sections 1.1, 1.1.1, and 2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the force-responsive ring sensor of modified Ueda in view of Kenworthy to acquire the metric based in part upon a change in a dimension of the sensor, as taught by Hoffmann, because Hoffmann teaches strain-gauge sensing as a known technique for converting force-induced deformation or dimensional change of a sensing element into a measurable electrical signal. Applying that known sensing technique to Kenworthy’s force-responsive edge-ring sensor would have predictably provided an edge-ring metric based at least in part upon dimensional change of the ring sensor. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wicker et al. (US 2002/0102858 A1), and further in view of Dhindsa et al. (US 2015/0325414 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ueda does not expressly teach wherein sensing the metric occurs at a point through a plasma screen, the plasma screen coupled to the outer periphery of the substrate support assembly, the plasma screen having an upper screen surface and a plurality of orifices extending therethrough, the upper screen surface parallel to the top surface of the substrate support assembly.
Wicker teaches a plasma screen disposed about the outer periphery of a substrate-support region (baffle ring 132 functions as a plasma screen and surrounds electrostatic chuck 106/pedestal 112; Wicker, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0047]; Figure 1). Wicker further teaches the plasma screen having an upper screen surface and a plurality of orifices extending therethrough (baffle ring 132 includes open spaces 132c providing passageways for gases and by-products and alternatively may include an array of holes or slots; Wicker, paragraphs [0047]-[0050]; Figures 1 and 2A-2C). Figure 1 further shows the upper surface of baffle ring 132 extending generally parallel to the upper surface of the substrate-support region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda’s plasma-processing apparatus to include Wicker’s plasma screen about the outer periphery of the substrate support assembly because Wicker teaches using the plasma screen to confine plasma above the wafer-processing region while permitting passage of gases and process by-products through the screen. Applying Wicker’s known plasma-confinement structure to Ueda’s plasma-processing apparatus would have predictably provided plasma confinement and gas-flow control around the substrate-support region. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Modified Ueda does not expressly teach wherein sensing the metric occurs at a point through the plasma screen.
Dhindsa teaches sensing through an opening in a plasma confinement structure during substrate processing (confinement ring 202 includes one or more slots 250, wherein the slots may provide a path that facilitates detection by an optical sensor during substrate processing; Dhindsa, paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ueda in view of Wicker so that sensing the edge-ring metric occurs through an opening in the plasma screen, as taught by Dhindsa, because Ueda teaches optically sensing the focus-ring metric, Wicker teaches a plasma screen having openings around the substrate-support region, and Dhindsa teaches using an opening in a plasma confinement ring as an optical-sensing path during substrate processing. Such a modification would have predictably permitted Ueda’s optical sensing through the plasma-screen opening while retaining the plasma-confinement and gas-flow functions of the screen. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishio et al. (US 2005/0230049 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ueda does not expressly teach wherein acquiring the metric is based in part upon an equivalent circuit model of the edge ring.
Nishio teaches an equivalent circuit model of a focus ring and acquiring an electrical metric associated with the focus ring using the equivalent circuit model (teaching that the focus ring is designed based on an equivalent circuit model corresponding to the physical phenomena associated with RF bias applied to the focus ring; Nishio, paragraph [0064]). Nishio further teaches computing the equivalent circuit using the material property and shape of focus ring 31 and directly measuring impedance using a network analyzer for use in the equivalent circuit (Nishio, paragraphs [0071]-[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda’s method so that acquiring the edge-ring metric is based in part upon an equivalent circuit model of the edge ring, as taught by Nishio, because Nishio teaches electrically characterizing a focus ring using an equivalent circuit based upon the material properties and shape of the focus ring and measured impedance associated with the focus ring. Applying Nishio’s known equivalent-circuit technique to Ueda’s focus-ring monitoring method would have predictably provided an electrical metric corresponding to the condition of the focus ring for use in Ueda’s focus-ring monitoring and adjustment method. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nikolenko et al. (US 2012/0293188 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ueda does not expressly teach wherein the ring sensor is an impedance ring sensor.
Nikolenko teaches an impedance sensor for acquiring a thickness metric during etching (an Impedance Resonance (IR) sensor is used for real-time in-situ monitoring of material thickness during etching and may be embedded in an electrostatic chuck or other wafer holder; Nikolenko, paragraphs [0029]-[0030]). Nikolenko further teaches that the impedance resonance sensor includes an excitation coil and a sensing coil positioned in close proximity to the measured object, wherein the sensing coil is brought into a resonance condition and the effect of the measured object on the self-resonant characteristics of the sensing coil is measured (Nikolenko, paragraphs [0051]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda’s ring-sensing arrangement so that the ring sensor is an impedance ring sensor, as taught by Nikolenko, because Ueda and Nikolenko both teach in-situ thickness measurement during plasma processing, and Nikolenko teaches an impedance-resonance sensor as a known alternative sensing technique for measuring material thickness during etching. Substituting Nikolenko’s known impedance-resonance sensing technique for Ueda’s optical focus-ring sensing technique would have predictably provided an impedance-based metric corresponding to the thickness or condition of the focus ring. See MPEP § 2141 III(B).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko teaches the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Nikolenko further teaches wherein the ring sensor includes a transmitting element and a receiving element (the impedance resonance sensor includes excitation coil 2 and sensing coil 3, wherein excitation coil 2 supplies electromagnetic energy to sensing coil 3 and sensing coil 3 is electromagnetically coupled with the measured object and provides the sensing response; Nikolenko, paragraphs [0051]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Nikolenko further teaches measuring phase characteristics of the ring sensor (a data acquisition block collects information from the sensing coil and excitation coil, and electromagnetic interaction with the measured object changes the resonance characteristics of the sensing coil; Nikolenko, paragraphs [0073]-[0074]). Nikolenko further teaches forming a useful sensor signal using an RF/IF Gain and Phase Detector comprising a phase detector (Nikolenko, paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko teaches the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Nikolenko further teaches emitting an electromagnetic field and detecting changes in the electromagnetic response by the sensor to determine a thickness of the measured material (the impedance resonance sensor includes an excitation coil that excites a sensing coil, wherein the sensing coil generates a probing electromagnetic field that interacts with the measured object; Nikolenko, paragraphs [0051], [0072]). Nikolenko further teaches that an electromagnetic field emitted by the impedance resonance sensor induces currents in the measured material, which in turn generate an electromagnetic field affecting the probing electromagnetic field (Nikolenko, paragraph [0091]). Nikolenko further teaches that electromagnetic interaction between the sensing coil and the measured object changes the resonance frequency and resonance amplitude detected by the data acquisition unit (Nikolenko, paragraph [0074]), and that the resulting sensor response varies with material thickness, wherein the resonant frequency of the impedance resonance sensor increases in accordance with increasing aluminum-film thickness (Nikolenko, paragraph [0092]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Nikolenko et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0131114 A1) and Nishio et al.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko teaches the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko does not expressly teach wherein the edge ring has a first electrode coupling the edge ring to a communication circuit and a second electrode coupling the edge ring to the communication circuit.
Chang teaches a focus ring having a plurality of electrodes electrically coupled to control circuitry (focus ring 10 includes a plurality of metallic electrodes 12 disposed inside main body 11; Chang, paragraph [0029]). Chang further teaches that respective power cables 13 electrically connect electrodes 12 with voltage source 14 and control unit 15, and that control unit 15 controls the voltage supplied to the respective electrodes (Chang, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the impedance ring sensing arrangement of modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko to provide first and second electrodes electrically coupling the edge ring to control circuitry, as taught by Chang, because Chang teaches providing multiple electrically connected electrodes within a focus ring for electrically interacting with and controlling the focus ring during plasma processing. Such a modification would have predictably provided electrical connections to the edge ring for obtaining and communicating electrical characteristics of the edge ring. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko and Chang does not expressly teach determining an impedance of the edge ring by utilizing an equivalent circuit model that includes the edge ring and the first and second electrodes.
Nishio teaches determining an impedance associated with a focus ring utilizing an equivalent circuit model (the equivalent circuit may be computed using the material properties and shape of focus ring 31, and the impedance of the focus ring may be measured directly using a network analyzer; Nishio, paragraphs [0072]-[0073]). Nishio further teaches an equivalent circuit in which power is supplied from electrode 33 to focus ring 31 and the dielectric focus ring is represented by capacitor C3, with the impedance associated with the focus-ring surface represented in the equivalent circuit (Nishio, paragraphs [0073]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode-equipped edge ring of modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko and Chang to determine the impedance of the edge ring using Nishio’s equivalent-circuit technique because Nishio teaches modeling the electrical path through a focus ring and its associated electrode structure to determine focus-ring impedance. Applying Nishio’s known equivalent-circuit analysis to Chang’s multiple-electrode focus ring would have predictably allowed the electrical contributions of the edge ring and its electrodes to be represented and used in determining the impedance of the edge ring. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Nikolenko et al., Chang et al., and Nishio et al., as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Koshishi et al. (US 2007/0169891 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko, Chang, and Nishio teaches the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
The modified method does not expressly teach wherein the impedance of an overall circuit is directly proportional to a thickness of the edge ring.
Koshishi teaches that the impedance of a focus ring varies directly with a thickness of a dielectric portion of the focus ring (teaching that impedance Z of focus ring 8 can be adjusted by varying the thickness of dielectric lower member 9; Koshishi, paragraph [0120]). Koshishi further teaches that the impedance is represented by Z=[ωε0ε(S/D)]-1 (ω: angular frequency), wherein D is the thickness of lower member 9, such that, for fixed frequency, dielectric constant, and surface area, impedance Z is directly proportional to thickness D (Koshishi, paragraph [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the equivalent-circuit impedance determination of modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko, Chang, and Nishio to account for the dependence of edge-ring impedance on edge-ring thickness, as taught by Koshishi, because Koshishi teaches in a focus-ring plasma-processing apparatus that the impedance of the focus ring can be adjusted by varying the thickness of a dielectric member of the focus ring according to the disclosed impedance relationship. Applying Koshishi’s known impedance-thickness relationship to Nishio’s equivalent-circuit determination would have predictably caused the impedance represented by the edge-ring portion of the circuit to vary directly with the thickness of the edge ring. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. in view of Nikolenko et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chang et al. and Roche et al. (US 2006/0171848 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko teaches the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Modified Ueda does not expressly teach wherein the edge ring has a first electrode coupling the edge ring to a communication circuit and a second electrode coupling the edge ring to the communication circuit.
Chang teaches an edge ring having a plurality of electrodes electrically coupled to control circuitry (focus ring 10 includes a plurality of electrodes 12 disposed within main body 11; Chang, paragraph [0029]). Chang further teaches that respective power cables 13 electrically connect electrodes 12 with voltage source 14 and control unit 15, and that control unit 15 controls the respective electrodes (Chang, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the impedance ring sensing arrangement of modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko to provide first and second electrodes electrically coupling the edge ring to control circuitry, as taught by Chang, because Chang teaches providing multiple electrically connected electrodes within a focus ring for electrical interaction with and control of the focus ring during plasma processing. Such a modification would have predictably provided electrical connections to the edge ring for obtaining and communicating electrical characteristics of the edge ring. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Modified Ueda does not expressly teach measuring a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode to determine a thickness of the edge ring.
Roche teaches a first electrode and a second electrode electrically connected to controlling electronics and measuring capacitance between the electrodes (sensor 300 includes embedded electrode 302 and exposed electrode 304, each electrically connected to controlling electronics; Roche, paragraph [0026]).
Roche further teaches disposing such sensors about a focus ring in a plasma processing system (Roche, paragraph [0041]). Roche teaches determining a correlation between the thickness of dielectric material covering embedded electrode 302 and capacitance measured between electrodes 302 and 304 (Roche, paragraph [0041]). Roche further teaches that erosion of the dielectric material causes the capacitance measured between electrodes 302 and 304 to change and that the calibrated capacitance measurements are used to determine the etching rate of the material (Roche, paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode-equipped edge ring of modified Ueda in view of Nikolenko and Chang to measure capacitance between the first and second electrodes to determine edge-ring thickness, as taught by Roche, because Roche teaches in a plasma-processing environment, including sensors disposed about a focus ring, that capacitance measured between first and second electrodes can be calibrated to the thickness of material subjected to plasma erosion. Applying Roche’s known capacitive thickness-sensing technique to Chang’s electrode-equipped focus ring would have predictably provided an electrical determination of edge-ring thickness based on capacitance between the electrodes. See MPEP § 2141 III(D).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Roche further teaches determining an erosion rate (the capacitive sensor is adapted for use as an etch-rate data sensor, wherein a calibration procedure correlates material thickness with capacitance measured between the electrodes; Roche, paragraph [0041]; further teaching that, as the material is eroded, the measured capacitance changes and the etching rate is computed using the sensor calibration data; paragraph [0042]).
Roche further teaches predicting when servicing is needed (diagnostic-sensor data may be used in a predictive algorithm to estimate remaining useful lifetime, and diagnostic events may indicate a need to repair or replace the monitored apparatus; Roche, paragraphs [0025], [0040]). Ueda likewise teaches replacing the focus ring when the focus ring has been consumed to a certain extent (Ueda, paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
