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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (USPGPub2016/0230281).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches that it is known to provide a substrate support assembly comprising a heater body that may comprise aluminum nitride, a known dielectric material [0036-0037] wherein a heater electrode is embedded in the plate and wherein the support may comprise an RF mesh and ground electrode as cited above. Further Lin teaches wherein the plate may be further cooled by a series of channels within the plate that may be fed by a gas wherein the gas flow may function as claimed [0042] although the prior art need merely be capable of functioning as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, aluminum nitride is a ceramic material.
Regarding claim 3, the plate of Lin is further positioned upon a shaft (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, item (310) reads upon an RF connector as claimed [0040] and is positioned relative to the shaft in the manner claimed.
Regrading claim 7, an “edge electrode” is not defined by the current application in any manner giving it meaning above that of the ground electrode or heater electrode of Lin as cited above.
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (USPGPub 2016/0230281) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7 above and further in view of Thach et al. (USPGPub 2014/0177213).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Lin are as shown above. Lin fails to teach wherein the RF connector is a coaxial connector provided with an outer shield and an RF rod. However, Thach teaches it is known to provide electrostatic chucks for plasma treatment operations that are to be coupled to RF power sources with a coax delivery line comprising an insulting tube encased in a metal rod further encased in another insulating tube [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide power to the RF mesh of Lin in the same way as provided by Thach because Thach shows that his materials provided for the power provision are known in the same field of endeavor to be suitable for the same intended purposes. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (USPGPub 2016/0230281) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7 above and further in view of Parkhe et al. (USPGPub 2013/0088808).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Lin are as shown above. Lin fails to teach the use of porous plug as claimed. However, Parkhe teaches that porous plugs may be employed in the gas channels of an electrostatic chuck device for the purpose of providing a desired gas flow rate within the channels of the chucking device [0027-0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the porous plugs of Parkhe in the invention of Lin in order to control the gas flow rate of the chucking mechanism of Lin as guided by Parkhe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 were allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: it is not known in the prior art to provide a system comprising a showerhead assembly comprising a set of lift pins to receive a substrate over the showerhead assembly, and a showerhead to deliver one or more process gases to perform a deposition process to deposit a material on a backside of the substrate and a substrate support assembly disposed above the showerhead assembly, the substrate support assembly comprising a shaft, a heater plate disposed on the shaft and comprising a dielectric material a heater electrode embedded within the heater plate, a set of distributed purge channels formed within the heater plate, wherein the set of distributed purge channels provides a set of gas flow paths to equalize a gas flow from within the heater plate and direct the gas flow in a direction below the heater plate, a ground electrode embedded within the heater plate and a radio frequency (RF) mesh embedded within the heater plate.
The most pertinent prior art (Lin et al. (USPGPub2016/0230281)) teaches that it is known to provide supports for the coating of wafers that comprise lift pins and the majority of the other components listed in the claims. However, it is noted that Lin in constructed entirely differently for the purpose of frontside deposition wherein the wafer and support surface are present above the showerhead and not below. Thereby the processing of the current application allows the purge channels of the heater plate above the showerhead to direct a gas flow within the heater plate down and below the heater plate which is where a substrate to be coated would likely be present during use of the apparatus.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
The applicant does not generally argue against the rejection of claim one, seemingly implying that it stands with claim 8. However, the allowable subject matter of claim 8 is not present in claim 1 and therefore claim 1 remains properly rejected. The rejections of claims 5 and 6 seem to stand with claim 1, which as stated above remains properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights