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:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 12-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chadha et al. Publication No. US 2025/0105051.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Chadha discloses a semiconductor wafer processing apparatus comprising:
a process chamber [par. 0003, par. 0027; Fig. 1, processing chamber 100] having a showerhead in an upper portion [Fig. 1, lid 104; par. 0030] thereof;
an electrostatic chuck [Fig. 1, electrostatic chuck assembly 150; par. 0027] located to face the showerhead inside the process chamber; and
a shaft [par. 0058, par. 0070; Fig. 4, shaft 402] configured to elevate the electrostatic chuck, wherein the electrostatic chuck has an upper surface configured to seat a semiconductor wafer [Fig. 9, substrate 920; par. 0099], a cylindrical sidewall [implicit, as shown], and a lower surface and includes an electrostatic chuck body formed of a ceramic material [par. 0003, par. 0004], and the electrostatic chuck body includes:
a plurality of RF electrodes [Fig. 9, RF electrodes 908; par. 0099] embedded in an inner, upper portion of the electrostatic chuck body;
a chucking sensor electrode [Fig. 9, clamp electrodes 906; par. 0099] embedded in the electrostatic chuck body and disposed between the semiconductor wafer and the plurality of RF electrodes [Fig. 9, electrodes 906 are embedded in the electrostatic chuck body and disposed between the wafer 920 and the RF electrodes 908]; and
a heater [Fig. 9, heating electrodes 910; par. 0099] disposed below the plurality of RF electrodes.
Regarding claim 12, Chadha discloses that the chucking sensor electrode includes at least one of tungsten W, tantalum (T), molybdenum (Mo) [par. 0036], niobium (Nb), or a Kovar alloy.
Regarding claim 13, Chadha discloses that the chucking sensor electrode has a wire shape [par. 0023; wire connection layer].
Regarding claim 14, Chadha discloses that the electrostatic chuck body is divided into a plurality of non-overlapping annular zones [Fig. 4, five puck plates 420-428], and the chucking sensor electrode is disposed in one of the plurality of non-overlapping annular zones [Fig. 4, chucking electrodes 406 are disposed in a top puck plate].
Regarding claim 15, Chadha discloses that in a plan view of the electrostatic chuck body, the chucking sensor electrode is disposed at a local position in one zone among the plurality of non-overlapping annular zones [Fig. 4, electrodes 406 are disposed at a top pluck 420 as shown].
Regarding claims 16-18, Chadha discloses that in a plan view of the electrostatic chuck body the chucking sensor electrode is disposed concentrically in an outermost annular zone among the plurality of non-overlapping annular zones in a radial direction [Fig. 4, chucking electrodes 406 are disposed close the side walls of the electrostatic chuck body, and therefore disposed concentrically in an outermost annular zone].
Regarding claim 19, Chadha further comprises a filter [Fig. 4, 418] reducing noise of a high frequency voltage transmitted through the shaft [par. 0067].
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadha et al. Publication No. US 2025/0105051.
Regarding claim 11, Chadha discloses that the chucking sensor electrode has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is matched or loses to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the upper puck plate [par. 0035].
However, Chadha does not explicitly disclose the chucking sensor electrode has a first coefficient of thermal expansion in a range of 4.0 to 9.0x10-/ C and the electrostatic chuck body has a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is within 5% of the first coefficient of thermal expansion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the chucking sensor electrode having a first coefficient of thermal expansion in a range of 4.0 to 9.0x10-/ C and the electrostatic chuck body has a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is within 5% of the first coefficient of thermal expansion, 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 1-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claim 1: The prior art does not disclose that the chucking sensor electrode configured to detect a change in flow of current or voltage between the back side of the semiconductor wafer when supported by the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck and the plurality of RF electrodes. 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