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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 17 and 18 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,222,805. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,805 in view of Sasaki (CN 108155094).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Sasaki teaches that which is not taught by claim 17 of 11,222,805.
‘805 not teach the electrostatic chuck comprising a plurality of movable pins that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck.
Sasaki teaches an electrostatic chuck (6) comprising a plurality of movable pins (61) that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate (W) relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck (Fig. 2 and 3). Sasaki teaches that it is well known in the plasma arts to use lift pins in an electrostatic chuck. Because Sasaki teaches that the lift pins are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used lift pins of Sasaki with the electrostatic chuck of Coppa with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrostatic chuck of Coppa by providing a plurality of movable pins that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck, as taught by Sasaki, claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Coppa (US 2017/0282223).
Regarding claim 1, Coppa teaches an etching apparatus comprising:
a process chamber (Fig. 1);
a source of radio frequency power (172);
an electrostatic chuck (122) within the process chamber, the electrostatic chuck configured to receive a substrate (W, fig. 1);
a chuck electrode (124), a source of direct current (DC) power (126, [0028]) connected to the chuck electrode (124),
and a spectral and/or charge monitoring system (198), wherein the spectral and/or charge monitoring system is configured to monitor surface charge level and/or composition of debris particles and/or contaminants on a surface of the electrostatic chuck (CF or carbon or polymer residue; [0047], fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Coppa teaches the process chamber includes an upper portion and a lower portion with the electrostatic chuck disposed between the upper portion and the lower portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Coppa teaches the upper portion includes an upper electrode (150, fig. 1, [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Coppa teaches the lower portion includes an insulating ceramic frame (136, 120, fig. 1, [0030]) and includes the electrostatic chuck within the insulating ceramic frame (136).
Regarding claim 5, Coppa teaches the chuck electrode comprises a conductive sheet (124, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Coppa teaches a vacuum pump connected to the process chamber [0031].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa (US 2017/0282223) in view of Sasaki (CN 108155094).
Regarding claim 10, Coppa teaches a plasma etching apparatus comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 1);
a source of radio frequency power (160, [0038]);
an electrostatic chuck within an insulating frame portion (136, 120 ) of the chamber (Fig. 1) and configured to receive a substrate (110),
a pump configured to provide a vacuum inside the chamber [0031];
a chuck electrode, a power source of direct current (DC) power (126) connected to the chuck electrode (124),
and a spectral and/or charge monitoring system, wherein the spectral and/or charge monitoring system is configured to monitor surface charge saturation of the substrate and/or composition of debris particles and/or contaminants on a surface of the electrostatic chuck.
Coppa does not teach the electrostatic chuck comprising a plurality of movable pins that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck;
Sasaki teaches an electrostatic chuck (6) comprising a plurality of movable pins (61) that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate (W) relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck (Fig. 2 and 3). Sasaki teaches that it is well known in the plasma arts to use lift pins in an electrostatic chuck. Because Sasaki teaches that the lift pins are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used lift pins of Sasaki with the electrostatic chuck of Coppa with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrostatic chuck of Coppa by providing a plurality of movable pins that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck, as taught by Sasaki, claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Regarding claim 12, Coppa teaches the chuck electrode comprises a conductive sheet (124,fig. 1, [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Coppa teaches the chamber includes an upper portion and a lower portion with the electrostatic chuck disposed between the upper portion and the lower portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Coppa teaches the spectral and/or charge monitoring system is configured to generate a contamination history report ([0048], fig. 3).
Claim 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki (CN 108155094).
Regarding claims 7-9, Coppa does not teach the electrostatic chuck includes a plurality of pins disposed in the electrostatic chuck.
Sasaki teaches the electrostatic chuck includes a plurality of pins (61) disposed in the electrostatic chuck (6). Sasaki teaches the plurality of pins are configured to move the substrate (W) relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck(6, Fig. 2 and 3). Sasaki teaches that it is well known in the plasma arts to use lift pins in an electrostatic chuck. Because Sasaki teaches that the lift pins are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used lift pins of Sasaki with the electrostatic chuck of Coppa with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrostatic chuck of Coppa by providing it includes a plurality of pins disposed in the electrostatic chuck and the plurality of pins are configured to move the substrate (W) relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck, as taught by Sasaki, because claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa and Sasaki as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Matsufune (JP 2000-195935).
Regarding claim 8, Coppa teaches each of the plurality of pins includes an electrically insulated cap to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod of each of the plurality of pins.
Matsufune teaches each of the plurality of pins includes an electrically insulated cap (3) to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod (4) of each of the plurality of pins (Fig 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lift pins of Coppa by providing each of the plurality of pins includes an electrically insulated cap to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod of each of the plurality of pins as taught by Matsufune, because the conductive part of the lift pin would not be exposed to plasma preventing abnormal discharge (Abstract).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa and Sasaki as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Matsufune (JP 2000-195935).
Regarding claim 11, Coppa does not teach each of the plurality of movable pins includes an electrically insulated cap to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod of each of the plurality of movable pins.
each of the plurality of movable pins includes an electrically insulated cap to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod of each of the plurality of movable pins.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lift pins of Coppa by providing each of the plurality of movable pins includes an electrically insulated cap to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod of each of the plurality of movable pins, as taught by Matsufune, because the conductive part of the lift pin would not be exposed to plasma preventing abnormal discharge (Abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa and Sasaki as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yuen (TW 1252260)
Regarding claim 15, Coppa teaches the power source is configured to apply a DC voltage between 2000 volts to 2500 volts.
Yuen teaches the power source is configured to apply a DC voltage between 2000 volts to 2500 volts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the power source of Coppa by providing it is configured to apply a DC voltage between 2000 volts to 2500 volts, as taught by Yuen, because it would clamp the substrate.
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa (US 2017/0282223) in view of Wang (WO 2020/167451).
Regarding claim 16, Coppa teaches an etching apparatus comprising:
a chamber comprising an upper portion and a lower portion (Fig. 1);
a source of radio frequency power (160);
an electrostatic chuck (122) disposed within an insulating ceramic frame (136, 120, fig. 1, [0030]) of the lower portion of the chamber (Fig. 1), the electrostatic chuck configured to receive a substrate (W, fig. 1);
chuck electrode (124) comprising a conductive sheet;
a vacuum configured to apply a gas pressure inside the chamber [0031];
a source of direct current (DC) power connected to the chuck electrode [0028],
and a spectral and/or charge monitoring system (198), wherein the spectral and/or charge monitoring system is configured to monitor surface charge saturation of the substrate and includes a chemical analyzer configured to analyze a composition of debris particles and/or contaminants on a surface of the electrostatic chuck [0046-0047].
Wang teaches an electrostatic chuck and lift pin assembly providing in ion beam etchers and plasma etching systems [0052].
The Examiner notes “ion beam etcher” is contained in the preamble and not incorporated into the body of the claim. Since Coppa teaches all the requirements of claim 16 one must conclude it teaches an ion beam etcher. Wang provides the recited vocabulary and teaches that particulars applicable to plasma etchers are also applicable to ion beam etchers [0052]. Since Wang teaches ion beam etchers are operable with electrostatic chucks and lift pins it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the apparatus of Coppa in the ion beam etcher of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Coppa by providing it is an ion beam etcher, as taught by Wang, because claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Regarding claim 17, Coppa teaches the upper portion and the lower portion comprise a conductive material ([0028],[0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Coppa teaches a gas source configured to supply one or more gases adjacent to the electrostatic chuck ([0030, heat transfer gas).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa and Wang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sasaki (CN 108155094).
Regarding claim 19, Coppa does not teach teaches the electrostatic chuck comprises a plurality of movable pins that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck.
Sasaki teaches an electrostatic chuck (6) comprising a plurality of movable pins (61) that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate (W) relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck (Fig. 2 and 3). Sasaki teaches that it is well known in the plasma arts to use lift pins in an electrostatic chuck. Because Sasaki teaches that the lift pins are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used lift pins of Sasaki with the electrostatic chuck of Coppa with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrostatic chuck of Coppa by providing a plurality of movable pins that protrude therefrom and configured to move the substrate relative to a surface of the electrostatic chuck, as taught by Sasaki, claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppa, Wang and Sasaki as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Matsufune (JP 2000-195935).
Regarding claim 20, Coppa does not teach each of the plurality of movable pins includes an electrically insulated cap to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod of each of the plurality of movable pins.
Matsufune teaches each of the plurality of pins includes an electrically insulated cap (3) to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod (4) of each of the plurality of pins (Fig 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lift pins of Coppa by providing each of the plurality of pins includes an electrically insulated cap to electrically insulate the substrate from a main rod of each of the plurality of pins as taught by Matsufune, because the conductive part of the lift pin would not be exposed to plasma preventing abnormal discharge (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights