DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3 and 19 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 3 describes an alternating current frequency range of “50kHz to 30mHz.” It is unclear if “30mHz” is intended to imply 30 megahertz (MHz). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 describes an alternating current frequency range of “50kHz to 30mHz.” It is unclear if “30mHz” is intended to imply 30 megahertz (MHz). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Pipitone et al. (US 2009/0044748 – hereinafter “Pipitone”) and Schönhoff et al. (US 2018/0100829 – hereinafter “Schönhoff”).
Per claim 1, Pipitone teaches a ring assembly test apparatus for a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
an electrode body including a bottom electrode disposed within a test object including a ring assembly (A process ring kit surrounds an electrostatic chuck (ESC) 122. The ESC 122 includes an electrode 128 (Fig. 1B; ¶18 and 31)); and
a power application module for applying power to the electrode body (An RF bias power generator 148 applies an RF bias power to the electrode 128 (¶19)),
wherein power is applied to the electrode body to test an occurrence of arcing of the ring assembly (An RF sensor 154 is placed between the RF bias power generator 148 and electrode 128 to sense an RF current or RF voltage. An arc detect comparator 158 connected to the RF sensor 154 determines whether an arc flag should be output based on the RF current or RF voltage sensed by the RF sensor 154 (¶21 and 35)).
However, Pipitone is silent on the electrode body including a bottom electrode disposed below the test object and a top electrode disposed above the test object wherein power is applied to the electrode body to test an occurrence of arcing of the ring assembly outside the substrate processing apparatus that processes a substrate (Pipitone states that the process ring kit is a consumable and that, as consumables degrade or are physically changed, they become more susceptible to arcing (¶3)).
In contrast, Schönhoff teaches a method for testing test objects for the presence of damage wherein a test object 2 is situated between an upper electrode 3a and a lower electrode 3b that are controlled to generate a test voltage 10 between the upper electrode 3a and the lower electrode 3b. An evaluation device 8 is configured to recognize a breakdown on a discharge path 3c between the upper electrode 3a and the lower electrode 3b to determine a defective test object (Figs. 1-2; ¶45, 49, and 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone such that a test object comprising the process ring kit and the ESC 122 is disposed between a top electrode and a bottom electrode constituting an electrode body wherein power is applied to the electrode body to test an occurrence of arcing of the process ring kit outside a substrate processing apparatus that processes a substrate. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of recognizing a defective test object (Schönhoff; ¶60) including a ring assembly that is susceptible to arcing as it is degrades (Pipitone; ¶3).
Per claim 2, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power application module applies high voltage alternating current (An RF current is generated by the RF bias power generator 148 (Pipitone; ¶21)).
Per claim 4, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprises, an arc detector provided between the electrode body and the power application module and for detecting an occurrence of arcing (In the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff, the arc detect comparator 158 is provided between the electrode body and the RF bias power generator 148 (Pipitone; Fig. 2)).
Per claim 11, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprises, a block provided between the bottom electrode and the top electrode, and surrounded by the ring assembly (In the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff, the test object, which is disposed between the bottom electrode and top electrode, would include the process ring kit and the electrostatic chuck that is surrounded by the process ring kit (Pipitone; Fig. 2)).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Pipitone and Schönhoff, in further view of Deguchi et al. (US 5,665,166 – hereinafter “Deguchi”).
Per claim 3, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the high voltage alternating current has an alternating current power of 0 kW to 30 KW and an alternating current frequency of 50 kHz to 30 mHz.
In contrast, Deguchi teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising a focusing ring 18 arranged along an upper peripheral region of a susceptor 7 wherein a high frequency power of, for example, 1 kW having a frequency of, for example, 13.56 MHz is applied from a high frequency power supply 11 to the susceptor 7 (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 22-27 and col. 7, lines 37-51),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff such that the high voltage alternating current has an alternating current power of 0 kW to 30 KW and an alternating current frequency of 50 kHz to 30 mHz. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of supplying a high voltage signal capable of generating plasma within a chamber (Deguchi; col. 7, lines 37-51).
9. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Pipitone and Schönhoff, in further view of Regef et al. (US 2020/0072907 – hereinafter “Regef”).
Per claim 5, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1 further comprises, a housing having a space for accommodating the electrode body.
In contrast, Regef teaches a leak test device 800 comprising a base 810 and a lid 820 wherein, when the lid 820 is closed, an inner chamber 840 is formed that holds a device under test 845 and high voltage brushes 850. A vacuum source 835 may create a vacuum in the inner chamber 840 (Fig. 8; ¶60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff such that it comprises a housing having a space for accommodating the electrode body. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of testing a device under test in a controlled environment (Regef; ¶60-61).
Per claim 6, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Regef teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the housing comprises, a body, in which the space is formed and an opening is formed; and a cover for covering the opening (In the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Regef, an inner chamber 840 is formed between a base 810 and a lid 820 (Regef; Fig. 8; ¶60-61)).
Per claim 7, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Regef teaches the apparatus of claim 5 further comprises, a vacuum pump for creating a vacuum atmosphere inside the housing (In the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Regef, a vacuum source 835 may create a vacuum in the inner chamber 840 (Regef; Fig. 8; ¶60-61)).
10. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Pipitone and Schönhoff, in view of Regef, in further view Iizuka (US 2009/0000743).
Per claim 8, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Regef does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the housing is made of a metal material.
In contrast, Iizuka teaches a plasma etching apparatus 100 comprising a chamber 1 made of metal having an inner surface coated with an insulating film. A supporting table 2, which supports an electrostatic chuck 6, is made of aluminum that has an oxidized surface (Fig. 1; ¶33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Regef such that the housing is made of a metal material. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing an airtight chamber 1 (Iizuka; ¶33).
Per claim 9, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in view of Regef in further view of Iizuka teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein an inner bottom surface of the housing is coated with a non-conducting material (In the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in view of Regef in further view of Iizuka, the metal housing includes an inner surface coated with an insulating film (Iizuka; ¶33)).
Per claim 10, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in view of Regef in further view of Iizuka teaches the apparatus of claim 8 further comprises, a support for supporting the electrode body inside the housing and made of a non-conducting material or coated with a non-conducting material (In the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in view of Regef in further view of Iizuka, a support for supporting the electrode body would be coated with an insulating film (Iizuka; ¶34-35)).
11. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Pipitone and Schönhoff, in further view of Udo et al. (US 2004/0040663 – hereinafter “Udo”).
Per claim 12, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the block is made of aluminum.
In contrast, Udo teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising a wafer stage 131 including a base material made of aluminum and a dielectric layer formed on an upper surface of the base material. A conductor ring 132 covered with a cover ring 133 surrounds the wafer stage 131 (Fig. 1; ¶33, 37, and 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff such that the electrostatic chuck is made of aluminum and includes a dielectric layer formed on an upper surface thereof. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a wafer stage capable of holding a wafer (Udo; ¶33).
Per claim 13, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Udo teaches the apparatus of claim 12 further comprises, a dielectric film provided on an upper surface of the block (In the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff in further view of Udo, a dielectric film is provided on an upper surface of the aluminum base (Udo; ¶33)).
12. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Pipitone and Schönhoff, in further view of Shinozaki (US 2018/0292464).
Per claim 16, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a radius of each of the bottom electrode and the top electrode is 100% to 150% of a radius of the test object.
In contrast, Shinozaki teaches an inspection apparatus for detecting a defect in a device under test disposed between an anode 11 and a cathode 12 that apply a voltage to the device under test. The anode 11 and cathode 12 are larger than the device under test in a width direction (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶32 and 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff such that a radius of each of the bottom electrode and the top electrode is 100% to 150% of a radius of the test object. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of sandwiching a device under test with electrodes under a certain contact pressure (Shinozaki; ¶40).
Per claim 17, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bottom electrode is provided in contact with a lower surface of the test object, wherein the top electrode is disposed in contact with an upper surface of the test object.
In contrast, Shinozaki teaches an inspection apparatus for detecting a defect in a device under test disposed between an anode 11 and a cathode 12 that apply a voltage to the device under test. The anode 11 and cathode 12 are configured to apply a contact pressure to the device under test (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶32 and 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff such that the bottom electrode is provided in contact with a lower surface of the test object and the top electrode is disposed in contact with an upper surface of the test object. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of applying a certain contact pressure to a device under test provided between two electrodes (Shinozaki; ¶40).
13. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Pipitone and Schönhoff, in further view of Oyabu (US 6,673,196).
Per claim 18, Pipitone in view of Schönhoff does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bottom electrode is formed with a concave fitting groove, wherein the power application module includes a rod connected to the fitting groove so as to be electrically connected to the bottom electrode.
In contrast, Oyabu teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising a power supply rod 8 that is connected to a bottom side of a lower electrode 2 to enable a high frequency power source 11 to supply power to the lower electrode 2 via the power supply rod 8 (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 17-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pipitone in view of Schönhoff such that the bottom electrode is formed with a concave fitting groove, wherein the power application module includes a rod connected to the fitting groove so as to be electrically connected to the bottom electrode. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of connecting a high frequency power source to an electrode (Oyabu; col. 4, lines 17-24).
Claim Objections
14. Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per claim 14, the prior art of record is silent on the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the ring assembly includes a first ring surrounding the block and a second ring surrounding the first ring, wherein the top electrode is in contact with each of the first ring and the second ring, and has a radius that is larger than an outer diameter of the first ring and smaller than an outer diameter of the second ring. Claim 15 is consequently objected to due to its dependence on claim 14.
Claim Remarks
15. Although claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the prior art of record does explicitly teach or suggest the combination of features described in this claim.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852