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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conductive base, insulating member, intermediate region, outer region, central region, inner ring supporting surface, outer ring supporting surface, first height, second height, third height must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Insulating member (any structure that insulates, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification) in at least claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Conductive base (no structure appears to be disclosed in specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “Insulating member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040129226 to Strang in view of US 20070215279 to Koshiishi.
Claims 1, 11: Strang discloses a substrate support comprising: an electrostatic chuck (300 [substrate holder], Fig. 9-10, para. [0033]) having: a central region (central 300) having a substrate supporting surface (central 310 [upper surface]) extending at a first height (Fig. 1, 6A, 9, 10); an outer region (outer region of 300) having an outer ring supporting surface (surface below 630 [mating lip]) extending at the first height (Fig. 6A); and an intermediate region (region under 600 [focus ring]) connected between the central region (central 300) and the outer region (region under 630), and having an inner ring supporting surface (320 [receiving feature]) extending at a second height lower than the first height (Fig. 10);
an insulating member (62 [shield ring], Fig. 9) disposed so as to surround the electrostatic chuck (300, Fig. 9); and a focus ring (600 [focus ring]) having an outer annular portion (630) and an inner annular portion (610, Fig. 6, 9, 10), the outer annular portion (630) being disposed on the outer ring supporting surface (surface below 630), the inner annular portion (610) being disposed on the inner ring supporting surface (320).
However Strang does not disclose a conductive base; the electrostatic chuck disposed on the conductive base, the outer annular portion being disposed on the insulating member.
Koshiishi discloses a conductive base (11 [mounting table], Fig. 1, para. [0042]); the electrostatic chuck (not shown, para. [0043]) disposed on the conductive base (11), and a focus ring (25 [focus ring]) that can be disposed on, next to, partially under, or otherwise arranged with an insulating member (26/61/62, Fig. 2, 6, 7, 14), for the purpose of circulating a heat medium for temperature control (para. [0043]) and/or electrically insulating portions of the components (para. [0012, 0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conductive base and configuration, and the optionality of arranging the focus ring with the insulating member as taught by Koshiishi with motivation to circulating a heat medium for temperature control and/or electrically insulating portions of the components.
Claims 4, 14: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi discloses wherein the electrostatic chuck (30, Fig. 1, Strang) has a common bottom surface for the central region, the outer region and the intermediate region (Fig. 1).
Claims 5, 15: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi discloses wherein the outer annular portion of the focus ring (630 of 600, Fig. 6a, Strang) has an outer bottom surface (bottom surface of 630) extending at the first height (Fig. 6A), and the inner annular portion of the focus ring (610 of 600) has an inner bottom surface (bottom surface of 610) extending at the second height (Fig. 6A).
Claims 8, 18: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi discloses wherein the focus ring (600, Fig. 6A, Strang) is formed of Si or SiC (para. [0036]).
Claims 9, 19: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the focus ring is formed of quartz.
Yet Strang teaches that a consumable or replaceable component such as one fabricated from silicon, quartz, alumina, carbon, or silicon carbide, can be inserted within the processing chamber for the purpose of protecting the surfaces of the more valuable components, and minimize the damage sustained by exposure to the processing plasma (para. [0005]). Strang is necessarily teaching that a focus ring can be one of the consumable or replaceable components.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept teachings of Strang as a material requirement for the focus ring, with motivation to protect the surfaces of the more valuable components, and minimize the damage sustained by exposure to the processing plasma.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang in view of Koshiishi as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 18-19 above, and further in view of US 6475336 to Hubacek.
Claims 2, 12: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi does not disclose wherein a thickness of the inner annular portion of the focus ring corresponds to a difference between the first height and the second height.
Hubacek discloses wherein a thickness of an inner annular portion of the focus ring (60 [mating portion] of 58 [edge ring], Fig. 5) corresponds to a difference between the first height (height of 50) and the second height (height of bottom of 56), for the purpose of improving thermal coupling from the focus ring to the substrate support with the result that plasma erosion of the focus ring can be reduced (col. 3, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Hubacek with motivation to improve thermal coupling from the focus ring to the substrate support with the result that plasma erosion of the focus ring can be reduced.
Claims 6, 16: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi discloses wherein the outer annular portion of the focus ring (630 of 600, Fig. 6A, Strang) has an outer upper surface (upper surface of 630) extending at a third height higher than the first height (Fig. 6A).
However the apparatus of Strange in view of Koshiishi does not disclose and the inner annular portion of the focus ring has an inner upper surface extending at the first height.
Hubacek teaches the inner annular portion of the focus ring (60, Fig. 5) has an inner upper surface (upper surface of 60) extending at the first height (height of 50) for the purpose of improving thermal coupling from the focus ring to the substrate support with the result that plasma erosion of the focus ring can be reduced (col. 3, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Hubacek with motivation to improve thermal coupling from the focus ring to the substrate support with the result that plasma erosion of the focus ring can be reduced.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang in view of Koshiishi as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 18-19 above, and further in view of US 11049760 to Joubert.
Claims 7, 17: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi discloses wherein the third height corresponds to a height of a substrate placed on the substrate supporting surface.
It is noted that the recitations tie the structure of the apparatus to a substrate that may be worked upon by the apparatus, but is notably not part of the apparatus; and therefore cannot be used to define over the prior art apparatus. The courts have held that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Joubert teaches that height different between the substrate and the edge ring can be less than about +/- 300 microns for the purpose of reducing edge effects and widening the processing window (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate height correspondence as necessary, with motivation to reduce edge effects and widen the processing window.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang in view of Koshiishi as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 18-19 above, and further in view of US 20160319428 to Rasheed.
Claims 10, 20: The apparatus of Strang in view of Koshiishi does not disclose wherein the focus ring extends beyond a periphery of the electrostatic chuck in a radial direction.
Rasheed teaches the focus ring (116 [edge ring], Fig. 1) extends beyond a periphery of the electrostatic chuck (not shown but included in 108 [substrate support], para. [0017]) in a radial direction (see para. [0019] where 116 may include a skirt or downwardly extending annular lip to protect the sides of the substrate support, which renders it necessarily extended beyond a periphery of the first electrode) for the purpose of protecting the sides of the substrate support (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the extended portions of the edge ring as taught by Rasheed with motivation to protect the sides of the substrate support.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected independent claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected independent claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights