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 .
Status of Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondences is in response to preliminary amendment filed 30 September 2024. Claims 2-18 are pending. Claim 1 is canceled. Claims 2-18 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation "and bridge section" should read as "and a bridge section" to correct for apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, limitation “one or both of the first DC power supply and the second DC power supply is floating” does not have sufficient support in the original Specification or drawings. Examiner explains that the original Specification only has support for “each power supply may be floating” (para. [0054]) or “the DC power supplies may be floating”/”floating DC power supplies” (para.[0007],[0058],[0062],[0063],[0065],[0066] [0070]) but there is not explicit support for only one DC power supply being floating. Thus, one cannot conclude the Applicant/inventor had possession of claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 3, 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, limitation "only the peripheral edge of the first bipolar electrode extends beyond the outer periphery of the substrate seat" is unclear and confusing the scope of limitation "only." Specifically, it is unclear what "only" excludes or includes. If half of the first bipolar electrode extends beyond the outer periphery of the substrate seat, it is unclear whether claim 8 limitation would read on this configuration. Furthermore, the claim limitation "only" is unclear whether this also excludes the heater electrode from also extending beyond the outer periphery of the substrate seat.
For the purpose of examination, claim 3 limitation shall be interpreted as " the peripheral edge of the first bipolar electrode extends beyond the outer periphery of the substrate seat."
Regarding claim 11, limitations “meshes of the first bipolar electrode and the second bipolar electrode” does not have sufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitations “the first bipolar electrode and the second bipolar electrode each comprise a mesh and meshes of the first bipolar electrode and the second bipolar electrode…”
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sill et al. (US 6,431,112 B1 hereinafter “Sill”) in view of Hironaka (US 2019/0393021 A1) and Kawabe et al. (JPH09223729A hereinafter "Kawabe" and referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding independent claim 2, Sill teaches a substrate support assembly (20, Fig. 1, col, 5 line 47), comprising:
an electrostatic chuck body (comprising 20, Fig. 1) defining a substrate support surface (i.e. top or upper surface) that defines a substrate seat (“seat” is interpreted broadly as comprising a portion/part of something on which something sits or rests, in the instant case “substrate seat” is defined as a portion of the upper/top surface of 20 on which substrate 22 rests) (col 7 line 24-29);
a first bipolar electrode (comprising 44, Fig. 1-3) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body (20, Fig. 1) (col 10 line 15-20);
a second bipolar electrode (comprising 46, Fig. 1-3) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body (comprising 20, Fig. 1-3), wherein:
a peripheral edge of the first bipolar electrode (comprising 44, Fig. 1) extends beyond an outer periphery of the substrate seat (i.e. extends beyond a portion of the upper/top surface of 20 where the substrate 22 is seated);
the first bipolar electrode (comprising 44, Fig. 1-3) and the second bipolar electrode (comprising 46, Fig. 1-3) are separated by a gap (shown in Fig. 1-3); and
the first bipolar electrode (comprising 44, Fig. 1) defines a cutout that receives the second bipolar electrode (comprising 46, Fig. 1);
at least one RF power supply(comprising RF power source 48, Fig. 1-3) , wherein each of the first bipolar electrode (comprising 44, Fig. 1-3) and the second bipolar electrode (comprising 46, Fig. 1-3) is coupled with an RF power supply of the at least one RF power supply(col 7 line 34-35).
Sill does not explicitly teach the second bipolar electrode comprises a semicircular region; a first DC power supply coupled with the first bipolar electrode; and a second DC power supply coupled with the second bipolar electrode.
However, Sill teaches a single DC power source (comprising clamping DC power source 50 including DC power supply 60,) connected to each of the first bipolar electrode (44, Fig. 1 and 3) and the second bipolar electrode (46, Fig. 1 and 3) to enable electrostatic clamping (Fig. 1 and 3, col 10 line 14-25).
Additionally, Hironaka teaches a first bipolar electrode and a second bipolar electrode (i.e. “at least two electrodes for attraction”) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body (comprising “dielectric film”) a first DC power supply and coupled with the first bipolar electrode and a second DC power supply coupled with the second bipolar electrode (i.e. “at least two of the electrodes for attraction are electrically connected to different direct current power sources respectively…different polarities are imparted to the at least two electrodes for attraction by power from the direct current power sources respectively”) (para. [0032]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide add respective DC power supplies to each of the first bipolar electrode (Sill: 46, Fig. 1) and the second bipolar electrode (Sill: 41, Fig. 1) because Hironaka teaches this is a known suitable alternative DC power supply configuration for a bipolar electrostatic chuck which would enable individual/separate control of the DC voltage supplied to the first and second bipolar electrodes.
Sill in view of Hironaka as applied above does not explicitly teach the second bipolar electrode comprises a semicircular region.
However, Sill teaches that the electrode geometries and configurations are not limited to the examples shown and that other configurations would also be suitable (col 11 line 22-41).
Additionally, Kawabe teaches a bipolar electrode configuration comprising a second bipolar electrode (comprising 13, Fig. 3a) comprising a semicircular shape (see annotated Fig. 3 (a) of Kawabe); the first bipolar electrode (comprising 12, Fig. 3(a)) comprises a circular outer periphery and the cutout has a semicircular shape that receives the semicircular portion of the second bipolar electrode (as understood form Fig. 3(a)). See annotated Fig. 3(a) of Kawabe below.
PNG
media_image1.png
697
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bipolar electrodes to include a shape of the second bipolar electrode to comprise a semicircular shaped region (i.e. change the shape of the bipolar electrodes to have a shape such as the one disclosed in Fig. 3(a) of Kawabe) because Kawabe teaches this is a suitable alternative shape configuration of bipolar electrostatic chuck electrodes suitable for chucking/holding a substrate.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration…was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Examiner notes that the shape of the first and second bipolar electrodes do not have any particular criticality in light of para. [0052], [0056], [0060], [0064], [0067] of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above and Sill further teaches that the peripheral edge of the first bipolar electrode (44, Fig. 2 and 3) extends beyond the outer periphery of the substrate seat (i.e. portion of the upper/top surface of 20 on which substrate 22 rests).
Regarding claim 4, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above and Sill further teaches that both the first bipolar electrode (44, Fig. 1-3) and the second bipolar electrode (46, Fig. 1-3) can comprise a mesh (col 7 line 14-17).
Furthermore, Kawabe teaches a bipolar electrode configuration comprising a second bipolar electrode (comprising 13, Fig. 3a) comprising a semicircular shape (see annotated Fig. 3 (a) of Kawabe); the first bipolar electrode (comprising 12, Fig. 3(a)) comprises a circular outer periphery and the cutout has a semicircular shape that receives the semicircular portion of the second bipolar electrode (as understood form Fig. 3(a)).
PNG
media_image2.png
697
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, the combination meets claim 4 limitations.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration…was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Examiner notes that the shape of the first and second bipolar electrodes do not have any particular criticality in light of para. [0052], [0056], [0060], [0064], [0067] of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above and Sill further teaches that both the first bipolar electrode (44, Fig. 1-3) and the second bipolar electrode (46, Fig. 1-3) can comprise a mesh (col 7 line 14-17).
Kawabe further teaches the second bipolar electrode comprises a first section and a second section that extends from the first section; the first section comprising the semicircular region; the second section has an arc shape; the first bipolar electrode comprises a circular outer periphery; and the cutout has a size and shape that substantially matches a size and shape of the second bipolar electrode. {note: Kawabe teaches that second electrode 13 comprises two semicircular arc portions which each read on “semicircular” and “arc”.) See annotated Fig. 3(a) below.
PNG
media_image3.png
697
849
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, the combination meets claim 5 limitations.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration…was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Examiner notes that the shape of the first and second bipolar electrodes do not have any particular criticality in light of para. [0052], [0056], [0060], [0064], [0067] of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 5 as applied above and Kawabe further teaches the semicircular region and the arc shape have a constate rate of curvature (as understood from Fig. 3(a)). Thus, the combination meets claim 6 limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above Sill further teaches that both the first bipolar electrode (44, Fig. 1-3) and the second bipolar electrode (46, Fig. 1-3) can comprise a mesh (col 7 line 14-17) the meshes of the first bipolar electrode and the second bipolar electrode are coplanar (as understood from Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above but does not explicitly teach the first DC power supply is operated in a negative voltage arrangement.
However, Sill teaches applying a negative bias/voltage to the first bipolar electrode (col 10 line 18-25) as a suitable DC clamping bias arrangement.
Further, Hironaka teaches a first bipolar electrode and a second bipolar electrode (i.e. “at least two electrodes for attraction”) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body (comprising “dielectric film”) a first DC power supply and coupled with the first bipolar electrode and a second DC power supply coupled with the second bipolar electrode (i.e. “at least two of the electrodes for attraction are electrically connected to different direct current power sources respectively…different polarities are imparted to the at least two electrodes for attraction by power from the direct current power sources respectively”) (para. [0032]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the first DC power supply is operated in a negative voltage arrangement because Sill already teaches applying a negative voltage to the first bipolar electrode which is connected to the first DC power supply is a suitable DC clamping bias arrangement and because Hironaka teaches each DC power supply connected to the respective first and second bipolar electrode have different polarities (i.e. negative or positive) which is suitable for attracting/holding the substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above Sill further teaches that the electrostatic chuck body (comprising 20, Fig. 1) comprises a ceramic material (i.e. aluminum nitride, col 7 line 11-12).
Regarding claim 15, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above Sill further teaches a support stem (note labeled but is shown in Fig. 1 as the shaft/rod supporting 20) coupled with the electrostatic chuck body (comprising 20, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 18, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above Sill further teaches the first bipolar electrode (comprising 44, Fig. 1-3) comprises a mesh with a generally circular outer periphery (col 7 line 14-17). Further, Kawabe teaches the first bipolar electrode (comprising 12, Fig. 3(a)) has a generally circular outer periphery. Thus, the combination meets claim 18 limitations.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sill et al. (US 6,431,112 B1 hereinafter “Sill”) in view of Hironaka (US 2019/0393021 A1) and Kawabe et al. (JPH09223729A hereinafter "Kawabe" and referring to English Machine Translation) as applied to claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18 above and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2004/0233609 A1 hereinafter “Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 7, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 5 as applied above but does not explicitly teach the arc shape extends between 90 degrees and 175 degrees from a proximal end of the arc shape to a distal end of the arc shape such that the distal end of the arc shape is spaced apart from the semicircular region.
However, Yoshida teaches an electrostatic chuck (abstract) comprising first and second bipolar electrodes wherein the second bipolar electrode comprises an arc shape that extends between 90 degrees and 175 degrees (i.e. about 150 degrees) from a proximal end of the arc shape to a distal end of the arc shape such that the distal end of the arc shape is spaced apart from the semicircular region (i.e. by shifting the short linear portions 33a and 33b in a circumferential direction) (para. [0033]). Yoshida teaches that such a configuration enables achieve stable and uniform adsorptivity over the whole wafer/substrate adsorption area (para. [0033]). See annotated Fig. 3 of Yoshida below.
PNG
media_image4.png
667
949
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the second bipolar electrode such that the arc shape to extend between 90 degrees and 175 degrees from a proximal end of the arc shape to a distal end of the arc shape such that the distal end of the arc shape is spaced apart from the semicircular region (i.e. by shifting the short linear sections of the second bipolar electrode in a circumferential direction) because Yoshida teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative shape configuration of a bipolar electrode that would enable stable and uniform adsorptivity over the whole wafer/substrate adsorption area (Yoshida: para. [0033]).
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. (In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (See MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Regarding claim 8, Sill in view of Hironaka, Kawabe, and Yoshida teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 7 as applied above including the first bipolar electrode comprises a mesh (see teachings of Sill as applied in claim 5).
Kawabe further teaches the first bipolar electrode comprises an outer annular section, an inner semicircular section, and a bridge section that connects the outer annular section and the inner semicircular section. See annotated Fig. 3(a) of Kawabe below.
PNG
media_image5.png
727
939
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, the combination meets claim 8 limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Sill in view of Hironaka, Kawabe, and Yoshida teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 8 as applied above and Kawabe further teaches the bridge section is disposed within a gap formed between the distal end of the arc shape and the semicircular region. See annotated Fig. 3(a) of Kawabe below.
PNG
media_image6.png
740
937
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus, the combination meets claim 9 limitations.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sill et al. (US 6,431,112 B1 hereinafter “Sill”) in view of Hironaka (US 2019/0393021 A1) and Kawabe et al. (JPH09223729A hereinafter "Kawabe" and referring to English Machine Translation) as applied to claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18 above and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0040198 A1 hereinafter "Lin").
Regarding claim 10, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above but does not explicitly teach the substrate seat is defined by a recessed region formed in the substrate support surface.
However, Lin teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising electrostatic chuck 208, Fig. 2A; comprising 240, Fig. 2B, para. [0037]; comprising 250, Fig. 2C, para. [0040]; comprising 540, Fig. 5A, para. [0058]; comprising 560, Fig. 5B, para. [0065]) comprising a substrate seat (i.e. a space inside annular shoulder 236, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B; para. [0030]) defined by a recessed region formed in the support surface (comprising top surface 202, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B). Lin teaches such a configuration enables laterally confining the movement of the substrate (121, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) in a predetermined position (para. [0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate seat to define a recessed region formed in the support surface because Lin teaches that such a configuration enables laterally confining the movement of the substrate/wafer in predetermined position (Lin: para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above but does not explicitly teach a heater embedded within the electrostatic chuck body.
However, Lin teaches a heater (comprising 288, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body (comprising 228, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) (para. [0035]-[0036]); a first electrode (comprising inner electrode 242, Fig. 2B, para. [0037]-[0039]; comprising 252, Fig. 2C, para. [0040]-[0042]; comprising 542, Fig. 5A and 5B, para. [0061]) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body between the heater (288, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) and the substrate support surface (comprising 202, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) (para. [0037]-[0042], [0058]-[0065]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a heater embedded within the electrostatic chuck body (Sill: 20, Fig. 1) because Lin teaches such a configuration is an obvious alternative configuration of a substrate support which one of ordinary skill would understand enables heating/temperature control of the electrostatic chuck body.
Regarding claim 17, Sill in view of Hironaka, Kawabe, Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above but does not explicitly teach each of the first bipolar electrode and the second bipolar electrode is disposed between the heater and the substrate support surface.
However, Lin teaches the heater (comprising 288, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) isembedded within the electrostatic chuck body (comprising 228, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) (para. [0035]-[0036]); a first electrode (comprising inner electrode 242, Fig. 2B, para. [0037]-[0039]; comprising 252, Fig. 2C, para. [0040]-[0042]; comprising 542, Fig. 5A and 5B, para. [0061]) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body between the heater (288, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) and the substrate support surface (comprising 202, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) (para. [0037]-[0042], [0058]-[0065]); and a second electrode (comprising outer electrode 244, Fig. 2B, para. [0037]-[0039]; comprising 254, Fig. 2C, para. [0040]-[0042]; comprising 544, Fig. 5A and 5B, para. [0060],[0063]) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body between the heater (288, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B) and the substrate support surface (comprising 202, Fig. 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first bipolar electrode (Sill: 44, Fig. 1, as modified in claim 2 to have the shape of Kawabe) and second bipolar electrode (Sill: 46, Fig. 1 as modified in claim 2 to have the shape of Kawabe) to be embedded in the electrostatic chuck body between the heater and the support surface because Lin teaches such a configuration is an obvious alternative configuration of a substrate support which one of ordinary skill would understand enables heating/temperature control of the electrostatic chuck body.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sill et al. (US 6,431,112 B1 hereinafter “Sill”) in view of Hironaka (US 2019/0393021 A1) and Kawabe et al. (JPH09223729A hereinafter "Kawabe" and referring to English Machine Translation) as applied to claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18 above and further in view of Takeishi (JP 2003059910 A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 12, Sill in view of Hironaka and Kawabe teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein one or both of the first DC power supply and the second DC power supply is floating (i.e. configured to not be connected to ground).
However, Takeishi teaches an electrostatic chuck (40, Fig. 3) configured comprising a DC power supply (comprising high voltage generator 60A, Fig. 3) to be floating (i.e. not connected to ground potential) to prevent leakage to ground and thus high frequency power is not lost and the etching/processing rate does not decrease (para. [0019], [0063], claim 1, page 7).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure one or both of the first and second DC power supply to be floating because Takeishi teaches that such a configuration prevents power leakage to ground and decrease in processing rate (Takeishi: para. [0019], page 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banna et al. (US 2013/0107415 A1) teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising 108, Fig. 1, para. [0021]), comprising: an electrostatic chuck body (comprising 108 including 109, Fig. 1) defining a substrate support surface (i.e. upper surface) that defines a substrate seat (comprising a region defined by a circumference of ring 111 where substrate 110 is secured, Fig. 1) (para. [0023]); a support stem (see annotated Fig. 1 of Banna below) coupled with the electrostatic chuck body (as understood from Fig. 1); a heater (comprising 117, Fig. 1) embedded within the electrostatic chuck body (para. [0022]); an RF electrode (comprising 140, Fig. 1, para. [0023]), wherein the RF electrode (140, Fig. 1) comprises a mesh (para. [0025]) that extends from a central axis of the electrostatic chuck body to a position that is beyond the edge of the substrate (110, Fig. 1); an RF power supply (comprising 138, Fig. 1, para. [0023]) coupled with the RF electrode (comprising 140, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716