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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that a search of the entire application can be made without serious burden. This argument has been considered but not found persuasive. MPEP § 808.02 recites that for the purposes of the initial requirement of a restriction, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation either separate classification, separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. Since the Examiner has shown a different classification for the two groups of claims, a burden for examining both groups has been shown.
As stated in the prior Office Action, the claims of the present application contain distinct inventions. A search of these inventions may overlap, but the search of one invention does not include all the areas required for the others. A serious burden does exist, as different searches are required for each invention. Therefore, in order to ensure the quality of the search and examination, these inventions should be searched separately to account for their differences.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second to last line of paragraph [0003] on page 2 it is suggested to amend “Ma” to “Mg”. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, it is noted the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 8 it is suggested to amend “a bonding interface” to “a first bonding interface”, in order to ensure clarity for dependent claims describing addition bonding interfaces. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 4, in line 2 after “1” and before “to”, it is suggested to insert “µm”, in order to ensure the proper units are associated with the lower limit of the thickness of the Mg-containing layer. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 7, it is suggested to (1) in line 3 delete “predetermined” and (2) in line 3 amend “a bonding interface” to “a second bonding interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 8, it is suggested to (1) in line 3 delete “predetermined” and (2) in line 3 amend “a bonding interface” to “the second bonding interface”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 10, in line 2 it is suggested to amend “the bonding interface side” to “a bonding interface side”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi (US 2018/0108556) in view of The Importance of Pre-Diffusion Cleans in Silicon Wafer Cleaning (Wagner).
In reference to claims 1, 6 and 12, Takebayashi teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus including an electrostatic chuck, supporting substrate and a metal bonding layer ([0027]). The metal bonding layer is disposed to bond a face of the electrostatic chuck to the supporting substrate ([0018]) (corresponding to a bonded body). The electrostatic chuck is an aluminum plate and includes an embedded electrostatic electrode and embedded heater electrode ([0028]; Fig. 1) (corresponding to a ceramic plate; the ceramic plate comprises aluminum oxide and/or aluminum nitride, and comprises an embedded inner electrode).
The supporting substrate is a composite material comprising Si, C and Ti ([0029]). The supporting substrate is produced by mixing powdered silicon carbide, metallic Si and metallic Ti ([0035]). The powder is shaped, compacted and sintered by hot pressing ([0035]). Given that the instant application Specification discloses the preparation of a metal matrix composite includes (1) mixing SiC, metallic Si and metallic Ti, (2) forming a disk-shaped body and (3) firing while hot pressing at [0029], it is clear the supporting substrate prepared from the same materials and by a substantially identical process is a metal matrix composite including Si, C and Ti (corresponding to a metal matrix composite (MMC) plate facing one side of the ceramic plate and made of an MMC; the MMC comprises Si, C, and Ti);
The metal bonding layer bonds the electrostatic chuck to the supporting substrate ([0030]) (corresponding to a bonding layer interposed between the ceramic plate and the MMC plate and bonding the ceramic plate and the MMC plate to each other). The metal bonding layer includes an Al-Si-Mg material (containing 88.5 wt% Al, 10 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mg) ([0036]) (corresponding to the bonding layer comprises Al as a main component and Si and Mg as subcomponents).
Takebayashi does not explicitly teach the bonding layer comprises a Mg-containing layer, as presently claimed. However, Takebayashi teaches the supporting substrate and the electrostatic chuck are thermocompression bonded (TCB) using the metal bonding layer, a pressure of 0.5 to 2.0 kg/mm2 (i.e., 5-20 MPa) in a vacuum atmosphere while performing heating at 540-560ºC ([0036]).
Wagner teaches when wafer cleaning immediately prior to diffusion is effective, semiconductor manufacturing output is of high quality and the defect rate is reduced. A major pre-occupation of pre-diffusion cleaning is the removal of microscopic particles from the surface of the silicon wafer. Particles can prevent even diffusion and may themselves be diffused into the silicon, causing defects (p. 1).
Wagner further teaches Megasonic cleaning avoids the use of corrosive chemicals and is especially effective for dislodging microscopic particles from the wafer surface. The Megasonic process works by generating high-frequency sound waves in the cleaning bath. An ultrasonic generator produces the high-frequency electronic signal and a transducer converts the signal into sound waves that travel through the cleaning solution. The sound waves create tiny cavitation bubbles that produce a scrubbing action against the wafer surface. The action of the bubbles cleans the wafer (p. 2).
In light of the motivation of Wagner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to ultrasonically clean the bonding surfaces of both the supporting substrate and the electrostatic chuck of Takebayashi before TCB, in order to ensure the semiconductor manufacturing output is of high quality and the defect rate is reduced, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Given that the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus of Takebayashi in view of Wagner is substantially identical to the present claimed bonded body in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process, it is clear that the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus of Takebayashi in view of Wagner would intrinsically comprise a Mg-containing layer between a bonding interface and the electrostatic chuck.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claims 2-4, Takebayashi in view of Wagner teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus of Takebayashi in view of Wagner is substantially identical to the present claimed bonded body in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process, it is clear that the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus of Takebayashi in view of Wagner would intrinsically comprise a Mg-containing layer comprising Al and O, wherein a weight ratio of Al:Mg:O is 1:0.1-0.50:0.001-0.100 and a thickness of 1 to 10 µm.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 5, Takebayashi in view of Wagner teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Takebayashi teaches the supporting substrate and the electrostatic chuck are thermocompression bonded (TCB) using the metal bonding layer, a pressure of 0.5 to 2.0 kg/mm2 (i.e., 5-20 MPa) in a vacuum atmosphere while performing heating at 540-560ºC ([0036]) (corresponding to the bonding of the ceramic plate, the bonding layer and the MMC plate is thermal compression bonding).
However, it is noted that claim 5 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 5 is product-by-process claims.
For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure defined in claim 1. Takebayashi in view of Wagner suggests such a product.
In reference to claims 7-9, Takebayashi in view of Wagner teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Takebayashi in view of Wagner teaches the supporting substrate and the electrostatic chuck are thermocompression bonded (TCB) using the metal bonding layer, a pressure of 0.5 to 2.0 kg/mm2 (i.e., 5-20 MPa) in a vacuum atmosphere while performing heating at 540-560ºC (Takebayashi, [0036]). The bonding surfaces of the supporting substrate and the electrostatic chuck are ultrasonically cleaned before bonding.
Given that the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus of Takebayashi in view of Wagner is substantially identical to the present claimed bonded body in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process, it is clear that the support substrate of Takebayashi in view of Wagner would intrinsically comprise an Al-diffused layer in which Al derived from the metal bonding layer is diffused over a depth DAl from a bonding interface between the bonding layer and the support substrate, an Mg-diffused layer in which Mg derived from the bonding layer is diffused over a depth DMg from the bonding interface between the bonding layer and the support substrate, wherein DAl>DMg.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 11, Takebayashi in view of Wagner teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus of Takebayashi in view of Wagner is substantially identical to the present claimed bonded body in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process, it is clear that the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus of Takebayashi in view of Wagner would intrinsically have a bonding strength of 200 MPa or more in four point bending test.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi in view of Wagner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2002/0075624) (Wang).
In reference to claim 10, Takebayashi in view of Wagner teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Takebayashi in view of Wagner does not explicitly teach a surface of the support substrate on a bonding interface side has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.01 to 1.0 µm, as presently claimed.
Wang teaches an electrostatic chuck for holding a substrate having a support of a composite of a ceramic and metal bonded by a bonding layer to an electrostatic member (Abstract; [0064]-[0066]). The top and bottom surfaces of the support are ground until the surface roughness of the support is less than about 1 micron ([0089]) (corresponding to a surface of the support substrate on a bonding interface side has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 0.01 to 1.0 µm). The grinding allows the support to uniformly contact the base and provides a strong and substantially void free bonding layer between the support and the base ([0089]). A smooth bottom surface is useful to enhance the vacuum seal between the support and the bottom surface of the chamber ([0089]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In light of the motivation of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to subject the top and bottom surface of the support substrate of Takebayashi in view of Wagner to grinding such that the surface roughness of the top and bottom surfaces is less than 1 micron, in order to provide uniform contact between the support and electrostatic chuck, provide a strong and substantially void free bonding layer between the support substrate and the electrostatic chuck and enhance a vacuum seal between the support substrate and a bottom surface of a chamber, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights