DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/23/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended.
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.
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 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volfovski (US Pub. 2013/0087309) in view of Anderson (US Pub. 2003/0178145) and Eto (US Pub. 2020/0035536).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Volfovski teaches a substrate support apparatus ([0019] and Figs. 1 and 4B, substrate support #106 with first member #108) comprising a support body ([0019]: supports substrate #105, Fig. 1), the support body comprising: a substrate support face (Fig. 4B, upper surface of pins #107 and #202), the substrate support face comprising: an outer support surface (Fig. 4B, upper surface of support ring #202), a recessed/base surface disposed inwardly of the outer support surface (Fig. 4B, lowermost surface radially inward), a plurality of support protrusions extending from the recessed surface ([0025] and Fig. 4B, support pins #107 extending from lowermost surface), the plurality of support protrusions having a plurality of support surfaces (Fig. 4B, upper faces of #107); and a plurality of pin openings configured to receive lift pins therein ([0030] and Fig. 4B, lift pin holes #220).
Volfovski does not teach a plurality of elevated surfaces disposed between the recessed surface and the plurality of support surfaces, each elevated surface of the plurality of elevated surfaces having an outer diameter and an inner diameter, the inner diameter being vertically aligned with a side surface of a respective pin opening of the plurality of pin openings and the outer diameter being vertically aligned with a side surface of a support protrusion of the plurality of support protrusions, wherein the plurality of support surfaces are disposed at a first height relative to the recessed surface and the plurality of elevated surfaces are disposed at a second height relative to the recessed surface, the second height being less than the first height.
However, Anderson teaches a plurality of elevated surfaces disposed between the recessed surface and the plurality of support surfaces (Anderson – Fig. 5G, surface supporting #514), each elevated surface of the plurality of elevated surfaces having an outer diameter and an inner diameter (see Fig. 5G), the inner diameter being vertically aligned with a side surface of a respective pin opening of the plurality of pin openings (see Fig. 5G, aligned with opening for #542) and the outer diameter being vertically aligned with a side surface of a support protrusion of the plurality of support protrusions (see Fig. 5G, aligned with vertical wall of #515), wherein the plurality of support surfaces are disposed at a first height relative to the recessed/base surface (see annotated Fig. 5G below, “1” relative to “B/R”) and the plurality of elevated surfaces are disposed at a second height relative to the recessed/base surface (as below, “2” relative to “B/R”), the second height being less than the first height (as below, “2” less than “1”).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the substrate support of Volfovski the include the “elevated” lift pin opening structure of Anderson in order to restrict gas flow to the bottom side of the wafer to prevent changes in the wafer surface (Anderson – [0031]-[0032]).
Modified Volfovski does not appear to teach wherein an uppermost surface of each lift pin is configured to extend below each elevated surface.
However, Eto teaches this structure (Eto – Fig. 3A/B, lift pin #50 extends below upper surface of supporting member #29s).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the substrate support/lift pin assembly of Volfovski (particularly, the unitary pin structure of Anderson) to comprise the two-piece structure of Eto in order to protect the lift pin from abnormal discharge (Eto – [0050]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Volfovski does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Anderson teaches wherein an upper vertical surface of each pin opening directly contacts the inner diameter of a respective elevated surface (Anderson – Fig. 5G).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the substrate support of Volfovski the include the “elevated” lift pin opening structure of Anderson in order to restrict gas flow to the bottom side of the wafer to prevent changes in the wafer surface (Anderson – [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Volfovski teaches wherein the substrate support apparatus further comprises one or more resistive heaters embedded in the pedestal ([0028] and Figs. 1-2, heater #110 comprises one or more resistive heating elements #212).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Volfovski teaches wherein the plurality of support surfaces are disposed at a first height (Fig. 4C, upper surface of #107 at a first height).
Volfovski does not teach a plurality of elevated surfaces.
However, Anderson teaches a plurality of elevated surfaces disposed at a second height relative to the recessed surface, and the second height is less than the first height (Anderson – Fig. 5G, surface supporting #514).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the substrate support of Volfovski the include the “elevated” lift pin opening structure of Anderson in order to restrict gas flow to the bottom side of the wafer to prevent changes in the wafer surface (Anderson – [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Volfovski does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Anderson teaches wherein each elevated surface of the plurality of elevated surfaces intersects one or more sidewalls of a respective cylindrical band that surrounds the elevated surface (Anderson – Fig. 5G, surface supporting #514 is surrounded by walls of #515).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the substrate support of Volfovski the include the “elevated” lift pin opening structure of Anderson in order to restrict gas flow to the bottom side of the wafer to prevent changes in the wafer surface (Anderson – [0031]-[0032]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volfovski (US Pub. 2013/0087309), Anderson (US 2003/0178145), and Eto (US Pub. 2020/0035536), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 above, further in view of Or (US Patent 6,887,317 – hereafter ‘317).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Volfovski teaches wherein each respective pin opening of the plurality of pin openings comprises a vertical section having an inner surface (see Fig. 4C around holes #220).
Modified Volfovski does not teach a tapered section having a tapered surface that transitions the inner surface to the elevated surface.
However, ‘317 teaches a tapered section having a tapered surface that transitions the inner surface to the elevated surface (‘317 – C3, L6-12 and Fig. 2, tapered side surface of #202 transitions the innermost surface of #202 to the elevated surface of the substrate support).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the inner surfaces of the pin openings of modified Volfovski to comprise a tapered section in order to allow for a tapered lift pin, which advantageously will not fall through the guide hole, in a recessed/flush/countersunk manner (‘317 – C3, L6-12).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volfovski (US Pub. 2013/0087309), Anderson (US 2003/0178145), and Eto (US Pub. 2020/0035536), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 above, further in view of Lei (US Patent 6,494,955).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Volfovski does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the second height is a fraction of the first height (Anderson – Fig. 5G: surface supporting #514 is a fraction of full height of walls of #515).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the substrate support of Volfovski the include the “elevated” lift pin opening structure of Anderson in order to restrict gas flow to the bottom side of the wafer to prevent changes in the wafer surface (Anderson – [0031]-[0032]).
Modified Volfovski does not explicitly teach wherein the fraction is within a range of 0.3 to 0.8.
While Lei does not explicitly teach the limitation above, Lei does teach wherein the depth of the gap between a substrate support surface and the substrate support is a result effective variable. Particularly, Lei teaches that the size of the gap is variable in order to promote better chucking and to compensate for temperature non-uniformities relating to the chucked substrate (Lei – C4, L25-34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the second height (and thus the fraction in relation to the first height) through routine experimentation in order to promote better chucking and to compensate for temperature non-uniformities relating to the chucked substrate (Lei – C4, L25-34). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volfovski (US Pub. 2013/0087309), Anderson (US 2003/0178145), and Eto (US Pub. 2020/0035536), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 above, further in view of Endou (US Patent 6,863,281) and Lei (US Patent 6,494,955).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, modified Volfovski does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Endou teaches wherein the first height is within a range of 25 microns to 35 microns (Endou – C3, L39-56: 1-30 microns).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the protrusions of modified Volfovski to between 25-35 microns since Endou teaches a range encompassing the claimed range. Further, Endou teaches the disclosed range (1-30 microns) is ideal for adequately cooling the substrate and providing adequate chucking and temperature uniformity (Endou – C3, L39-56).
Modified Volfovski does not explicitly teach wherein the second height is within a range of 7 microns to 24 microns.
While Lei does not explicitly teach the limitation above, Lei does teach wherein the depth of the gap between a substrate support surface and the substrate support is a result effective variable. Particularly, Lei teaches that the size of the gap is variable in order to promote better chucking and to compensate for temperature non-uniformities relating to the chucked substrate (Lei – C4, L25-34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the second height of modified Volfovski through routine experimentation in order to promote better chucking and to compensate for temperature non-uniformities relating to the chucked substrate (Lei – C4, L25-34). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volfovski (US Pub. 2013/0087309), Anderson (US 2003/0178145), Eto (US Pub. 2020/0035536), Endou (US Patent 6,863,281), and Lei (US Patent 6,494,955), as applied to claims 8 and 16 above, further in view of Boyd (US Patent 10,020,218).
The limitations of claims 8 and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, modified Volfovski does not explicitly teach wherein each elevated surface of the plurality of elevated surfaces has an outer diameter that is 0.2 inches or greater.
However, Boyd teaches wherein each elevated surface of a plurality of elevated surfaces has an outer diameter that is approximately 0.2 inches or greater (Boyd – C5, L60-C6, L14 and Fig. 2, mesas #202 have diameters between 0.5 and 5 mm; Examiner notes 0.2 mm is approximately equal to 5.08 mm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the protrusions of modified Volfovski to the claimed diameter based upon the disclosed sizes of Boyd. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volfovski (US Pub. 2013/0087309), Anderson (US 2003/0178145), and Eto (US Pub. 2020/0035536), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 above, further in view of Endou (US Patent 6,863,281).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Volfovski does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Endou teaches wherein a plurality of support protrusions are raised dimples that are arcuate in shape (Endou – Fig. 4, rounded surfaces #25 of protrusions #15).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to change the shape of the modified Volfovski protrusions to an arcuate shape in order to decrease friction between the chucking surface and the substrate to prevent generation of particles (Endou – C3, L15-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
The arguments are focused on the added limitation of claims 1 and 10: “wherein the plurality of support surfaces are disposed at a first height relative to the recessed surface and the plurality of elevated surfaces are disposed at a second height relative to the recessed surface, the second height being less than the first height”.
Volfovski is noted herein as deficient in teaching this limitation. The Examiner respectfully submits that Anderson explicitly teaches this limitation. Eto is not relied upon for any aspect of the above limitation.
Concerning Anderson, the Examiner submits the following annotated Fig. 5G showing the claimed feature:
PNG
media_image1.png
444
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant first asserts that: “those structures are disclosed in the context of lift pin guidance and gas control” (Remarks, pg. 8). However, the Applicant has not detailed why they feel this statement rebuts the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Additionally, no citations of Anderson have been provided that would support this assertion. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next asserts that: “Anderson does not disclose a substrate support face including a recessed surface, support protrusions extending from that recessed surface, and separate elevated surfaces disposed at an intermediate height between the recessed surface and the support protrusion support surfaces” (pg. 8, Id.). Again, the Applicant has not attempted to point out how or why they feel the structure of Anderson would fail to meet this limitation. This argument is not persuasive.
Next, Applicant asserts that: “[e]ven if the cited references were combined, the resulting structure would at most include support features and lift pin structures” (pg. 8, Id.). As before, the Applicant has not provided any detailed evidence or reasoning to support this assertion. This argument is not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant asserts that: “the added feature is not directed to a mere dimensional optimization or an inherent result of stepped geometry” (pg. 8, Id.), and “[i]n the absence of a disclosure or suggestion of this specific structural relationship, the amended limitation cannot be supplied by inherency or by general assertions of design choice” (pg. 9, Id.). As with the other arguments, the Applicant has not provided any detailed evidence or reasoning to support this assertion. This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that MPEP 2144.04 states the following: “If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection” (emphasis added). This section includes, amongst other topics, aesthetic design changes.
The Applicant has not demonstrated, however, that the limitation has criticality- no evidence from the original disclosure has been provided as a factual basis for their establishing any alleged criticality. A short assertion of criticality is insufficient to negate a possible design choice argument.
The Examiner has not made a design choice argument to meet the limitations of the claim as the feature appears to be explicitly taught by Anderson. However, the Examiner expressly reserves the right to make a design choice argument in the rejections of any of the claims if: 1) the facts support such an argument, 2) the as-filed disclosure is devoid of any discussion of criticality of a limitation in question, and 3) the Applicant has not provided any other evidence of criticality.
As a whole, the Remarks amount to mere attorney arguments and appear to be entirely lacking reasoned rebuttals of the Examiner’s position with facts and/or evidence. The §103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718