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 .
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:
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomm Publication No. 2018/0350649.
Regarding claim 1, Gomm discloses an apparatus comprising an electrostatic chuck (ESC) for supporting a semiconductor substrate, the ESC comprising:
an upper surface for supporting a wafer [par. 0031, support surface of the platen 300];
one or more clamping electrodes [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, electrodes 204, 206] beneath the upper surface, wherein the one or more clamping electrodes are configured to, when powered, electrostatically clamp the wafer to the upper surface;
a blocking electrode [Fig. 2, ring shaped outer electrode 212; par. 0028], wherein the blocking electrode comprises:
an annular portion [Fig. 3, 212], a center portion [Fig. 3, center portion as shown], and three or more spokes [Fig. 3, 214], wherein each spoke has a distal end coupled to the annular section and a proximal end coupled to center portion [as shown], wherein the annular section surrounds the one or more clamping electrodes when viewed along an axis perpendicular to the upper surface [Fig. 2 shows that the annular section 202 surrounds the one or more clamping electrodes 204, 206 when viewed along an axis perpendicular to the upper surface][description of figures].
Regarding claim 2, Gomm discloses that the one or more clamping electrodes are configured to be powered by an RF source [Fig. 1, RF generator 112].
Regarding claim 5, Gomm discloses that the three or more spokes are arranged in a radially symmetric pattern [as shown in Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 6, Gomm discloses that there are 2*n spokes, where n is an integer greater than one [Fig. 3-4 show that there are 4 spokes].
Regarding claim 8, Gomm discloses that the one or more clamping electrodes are two clamping electrodes [abstract; par. 0028].
Regarding claim 9, Gomm discloses that the two clamping electrodes are configured to, when powered by an radio frequency (RF) source, operate at a positive and negative polarity, respectively [Specification: “The electrostatic chuck is preferably a bipolar chuck with one or more pairs of clamping electrodes having opposed polarities:; par. 0030].
Regarding claim 10, Gomm discloses that the two clamping electrodes are nominally semicircular electrodes [Fig. 2; D-shaped semicircular electrodes as shown; par. 0004].
Regarding claim 11, Gomm discloses that the one or more clamping electrodes are planar [both clamping electrodes 204, 206 are flat and planar].
Regarding claim 12, Gomm discloses that the blocking electrode is planar [electrode 208 is planar].
Regarding claim 13, Gomm discloses that the blocking electrode comprises a metal mesh [inherently made of metal material].
Regarding claim 14, Gomm discloses that the blocking electrode comprises a single piece of metal [the electrodes can be a single, solid piece, or interdigitated made of aluminum nitride or alumina].
Regarding claim 16, Gomm discloses that the one or more clamping electrodes are parallel to the blocking electrode and between the blocking electrode and the upper surface [Fig. 3 shows that one or more clamping electrodes 204, 206 are parallel to the blocking electrode 208 and between the upper surface and the blocking electrode].
Regarding claim 17, Gomm discloses that one or more clamping electrodes are at least two clamping electrodes [Fig. 2, clamping electrodes 204, 206], and wherein at least one spoke of the three or more spokes are aligned with a gap between the one or more clamping electrodes when viewed along the first axis [as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 19, Gomm discloses an electrostatic chuck, comprising: two clamping electrodes [Fig. 3, 204, 206], and a blocking electrode [Fig. 3, 212, 214] having spokes [Fig. 3, 214], and lift pins [Fig. 3, holes 210 to receive lift pins] that do not intersect the three or more spokes [as shown].
Regarding claim 20, Feng discloses that the apparatus further comprises a process chamber [Fig. 1, processing chamber 102] that contains the ESC.
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.
Claims 3, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm Publication No. 2018/0350649.
Regarding claim 3, Gomm discloses that the blocking electrode and clamping electrodes are in two different planes and has a distance between the two. However, Gomm does not explicitly disclose that the distance between a top surface of the blocking electrode and a bottom surface of the one or more clamping electrodes is between about 0.05 and about 0.2 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the distance between a top surface of the blocking electrode and a bottom surface of the one or more clamping electrodes is between about 0.05 and about 0.2 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Gomm discloses 4 spokes as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. However, Gomm does not disclose that the three or more spokes are 10 spokes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have 10 spokes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 18, Gomm discloses that each spoke has a width measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis perpendicular to the upper surface and the proximal and distal ends of each spoke. However, Gomm does not explicitly disclose that a ratio between the total width of all spokes and the inner circumference of the annular is greater than about 1:10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio between the total width of all spokes and the inner circumference of the annular is greater than about 1:10, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 15, and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claim 4: The prior art does not disclose that that interior corners formed where each of the three or more spokes is coupled to the annular portion are rounded. This feature in combination with the rest of the claim limitations is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claim 15: The prior art does not disclose that the apparatus further comprises an RF power source, and wherein the number of spokes of the blocking electrode is based on a frequency of the RF power source. This feature in combination with the rest of the claim limitations is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claim 21: The prior art does not disclose that the apparatus further comprises a rotational indexer. This feature in combination with the rest of the claim limitations is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHARTI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8659. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
DHARTI PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/DHARTI H PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights