DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "180" and "184" have both been used to designate thermal interface gasket in ph 0037. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick (US 2008/0308229) in view of Matabayas (US 2005/0061496);
Claim(s) 1 (in the alternative) and Claims 10-12, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (US 2021/0305022) in view of Matabayas;
Claim(s) 13-15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto in view of Matabayas as applied to claims 1, 10-12 above and further in view of Patrick;
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto in view of Matabayas as applied to claims 1 and 19 above and further in view of Li (US 2007/0079936.)
Patrick discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
572
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An assembly (60/50 electrode assembly/support assembly figure 1-5) for a processing chamber (15) of a substrate processing system (at 10 and see abstract), the assembly comprising: a first component (70, ph 0013 or 1002); a second component (80, id or 1004), wherein at least one of the first component and the second component is configured to be exposed to plasma within the processing chamber (ph 0002); and a thermal interface material (90) arranged between the first component and the second component (figure 4-5), wherein the thermal interface material has a first surface (90 surface facing 70, i.e. 90.70) that faces and is in direct contact with the first component and a second surface (90 surface facing 80, i.e. 90.80) that faces and is in direct contact with the second component (as shown), wherein the thermal interface material is comprised of a [rubber] with at least one of aligned carbon fibers and carbon nanotubes (CNTs, ph 0019 the thermally and electrically conductive rubber is composed of carbon nanotube filler for effective heat transfer across the thermal interfaces), wherein the at least one of the carbon fibers and the CNTs are in a direction [relative] to the first surface and the second surface (as necessarily the case to provide the electrical and heat transfer in the space normal to the surfaces.); Patrick does not explicitly disclose, although Matabayas teaches: a silicon polymer material with CNT’s aligned perpendicular to first and second surfaces (see ph 0019, 0050, claims 6 and 7 and figures 2, 8a,8b and for the purpose of providing an efficient heat sink);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Patrick as taught in Matabayas with a silicon polymer material with CNT’s aligned perpendicular to first and second surfaces as taught in Matabayas, and all and for the purpose of providing an efficient heat sink as taught therein.
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is an upper electrode (60 is the upper electrode as discussed, ph 0013.)
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The assembly of claim 2, wherein the first component is a backplate (70 is the backplate) of the upper electrode and the second component is a faceplate (80 is the faceplate) of the upper electrode.
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The assembly of claim 3, wherein the thermal interface material is configured as a thermal interface gasket arranged between the backplate and the faceplate (as discussed id, and see figures 4 and 5 as interposed there between.)
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The assembly of claim 4, wherein the thermal interface gasket comprises a plurality of segments (ph 0016, and see also figures 4 and 5.)
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The assembly of claim 5, wherein the thermal interface gasket comprises a plurality of openings (88 figure 3) aligned with corresponding openings defined in at least one of the backplate and the faceplate (see alignment of openings at 89 figure 4), and wherein borders between the plurality of segments do not intersect any of the plurality of openings (as can be seen figure 3, the openings are within the gasket and do not cross the borders.))
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The assembly of claim 5, wherein the plurality of segments includes a central segment surrounded by a plurality of outer segments (figure 3, the segments are coaxially aligned in concentric fashion.)
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The assembly of claim 5, but Patrick does not explicitly disclose: at least one of the plurality of segments has a different thermal conductivity than others of the plurality of segments, nonetheless, considering the above need for relative heat sink thermal conductivity;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to utilize as suggested by Patrick and/or Patrick/Matabayas , a lower or higher level of thermal conductivity for one of the plurality of segments as opposed to another, for the purpose of for example, greater heat transference at applied heat locations so as to reduce heat gain and, all especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (thermal conductivity) on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Patrick discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The assembly of claim 4, wherein the thermal interface gasket comprises a plurality of alignment holes (88 figure 3 and 4) configured to receive respective ones of a plurality of alignment pins (88a figure 4) extending from at least one of the backplate and the faceplate.
Tsujimoto (in the alternative) discloses in claim 1: An assembly (60 figure 1-6) for a processing chamber (101) of a substrate processing system (at W wafer), the assembly comprising: a first component (104); a second component (ring E), wherein at least one of the first component and the second component is configured to be exposed to plasma within the processing chamber (see technical field ph 0046); and a thermal interface material (T/Ta) arranged between the first component and the second component, wherein the thermal interface material has a first surface (Ta surface) that faces and is in direct contact with the first component and a second surface (Ta) that faces and is in direct contact with the second component (as shown), wherein the thermal interface material is comprised of a [silicon rubber] with [a conductive film] (ph 0046-0053); Tsujimoto does not explicitly disclose, although Matabayas teaches: a silicon polymer thermally and electrically conductive material with CNT’s aligned perpendicular to first and second surfaces (see ph 0019, 0050, claims 6 and 7 and figures 2, 8a,8b and for the purpose of providing an efficient heat sink);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Tsujimoto as taught in Matabayas with a silicon polymer thermally and electrically conductive material with CNT’s aligned perpendicular to first and second surfaces as taught in Matabayas, and all and for the purpose of providing an efficient heat sink as taught therein.
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is a substrate support (101 is a substrate support.)
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 11: The assembly of claim 10, wherein the first component is a baseplate (104) of the substrate support and the second component is an edge ring (E.)
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The assembly of claim 11, wherein the thermal interface material is configured as a thermal interface ring (T/Ta is annular ring) arranged between the baseplate and the edge ring.
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The assembly of claim 12, Tsujimoto does not disclose, although Patrick teaches: the thermal interface ring comprises a plurality of segments (as seen in figure 4, and provided for location specific thermal conduction layers);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Tsujimoto as taught in Patrick with multiple sections of thermal interfacing rings as taught in Patrick all for the purpose of providing location specific thermal conduction layers, and especially considering that it has been held that the provision of separability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 14: The assembly of claim 13, wherein the plurality of segments includes plurality of arcs of the thermal interface ring (as indicated above, and where it would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide, for example, a plurality of segmented arcs in a ring for the purpose of conducting heat away at location specific thermal heat zones, for the reasons discussed above.)
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 15: The assembly of claim 13, Tsujimoto does not explicitly disclose: at least one of the plurality of segments has a different thermal conductivity than others of the plurality of segments; nonetheless, considering the above need for relative heat sink thermal conductivity;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to utilize as suggested by Tsujimoto and/or Tsujimoto/Matabayas/Patrick , a lower or higher level of thermal conductivity for one of the plurality of segments as opposed to another, for the purpose of for example, greater heat transference at applied heat locations so as to reduce heat gain and, all especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (thermal conductivity) on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 16: The assembly of claim 12, wherein the thermal interface ring comprises a plurality of alignment holes (117 figure 7) configured to receive respective ones of a plurality of alignment pins (107) extending from at least one of the baseplate and the edge ring (the hole and pins circumnavigate the ring for lifting purposes.)
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 17: The assembly of claim 12, Tsujimoto does not disclose, although Patrick teaches: a second thermal interface ring arranged radially outside of the thermal interface ring (see figure 4, and ph 0016, provided for the purpose of for example, localized facilitation of heat transfer under chamber specific heat generation areas.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Tsujimoto as taught in Patrick with a second thermal interface ring arranged radially outside of the thermal interface ring as taught in Patrick, all provided for the purpose of for example, localized facilitation of heat transfer under chamber specific heat generation areas.
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 18: The assembly of claim 17, Tsujimoto does not explicitly disclose: thermal conductivities of the thermal interface ring and the second thermal interface ring are different; nonetheless, considering the above need for relative heat sink thermal conductivity;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to utilize as suggested by Tsujimoto and/or Tsujimoto/Matabayas/Patrick , a lower or higher level of thermal conductivity for one of the plurality of segments as opposed to another, for the purpose of for example, greater heat transference at applied heat locations so as to reduce heat gain and, all especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (thermal conductivity) on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 19: The assembly of claim 1, further comprising an adhesive between the thermal interface material and at least one of the first component and the second component (ph 0077 where T is a heat resistant pressure sensitive adhesive or rubber, and as modified for the reasons discussed above.)
Tsujimoto discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 20: The assembly of claim 19, does not disclose, although Li teaches: an adhesive comprises a thermally-conductive epoxy (ph 0043, provided for the purpose of bonding and being pressure sensitive to vacuum pressure.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Tsujimoto as taught in Li with an adhesive that is a thermally-conductive epoxy as taught in Li, and all provided for the purpose of bonding and being pressure sensitive to vacuum pressure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights