DETAILED ACTION
Status
The amendment filed 11/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, and 19-21 are pending. Claims 11-14 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. In the amendment filed 11/12/2025, claims 1, 15, and 21 were amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-14 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/18/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The term “empty space” in claim 20 and 21 is interpreted inclusive of the space will not have a solid structure (such as elastic body 117) filling the space. The term is not interpreted inclusive of requiring a vacuum space. This interpretation is consistent with the embodiment of Fig 5 and 6 in which gas is flowed into the space (specification [0057-0058]).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“inert gas supply part” in claim 5-6 and 15 interpreted as inert gas source (215) and gas lines (shown not numbered in Fig 5 and in Fig 6 of the priority document JP2020-101049) and optionally valves (shown not numbered in Fig 6 of the priority document JP2020-101049), and equivalents thereof.
“heat transfer gas supply unit” in claim 10 interpreted as a gas source and flow path [0038], and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (prev. presented US 2019/0348316) in view of Wadensweiler (prev. presented US 5,978,202) and Yamamoto (prev. presented US 2014/0209245).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a substrate support (stage 110 Fig 7 [0070]), comprising: an electrostatic chuck (12 Fig 7 [0041]) including a placement portion (12a Fig 7 [0024]) having a substrate support surface on which the substrate (W Fig 7) is supported ([0025]) and a base portion (12b Fig 7 [0024]) that supports the placement portion (Fig 7 and [0024-0025]); a support plate (150 Fig 7 [0074]) that supports the electrostatic chuck (Fig 7); and an absorption member (130 Fig 7) arranged between the base portion and the support plate (Fig 7) and including an outer edge portion fastened to the support plate via a fastener (fastener 610 Fig 7, [0074-0075]). Hayashi further teaches between the base portion and the absorption member, a connection region, in which the base portion and the absorption member are interconnected in a central portion of the base portion (see Fig 7, central connection region having central screw 60a in Fig 7). Hayashi teaches the placement portion (12a Fig 7 [0025]) is made of ceramic [0046] and the base portion (12b Fig 7 [0024]) includes a coolant flow path (14c Fig 7 [0028]) formed inside the base portion (Fig 7 and [0028]) and a protrusion that protrudes in the central portion from a bottom surface of the base portion (central protrusion of 12b that connects with central screw 60a, not this is protruded from the bottom surface that is situated higher than the protrusions made to interface with the screws), the protrusion being in contact with a flat upper surface of the absorption member (flat upper surface of 130 Fig 7). Hayashi fails to teach that between the base portion and the absorption member, a separation region, in which the base portion and the absorption member are spaced apart from each other on an outer-edge side of the connection region, are formed. Hayashi further fails to teach the base portion is made of aluminum. Hayashi does teach separation gaps but (see areas 14f Fig 7) but fails to teach they are at an outer edge. In the same field of endeavor of electrostatic chuck substrate supports (abstract), Wadensweiler teaches that a layer (85 Fig 1, note this is analogous to the adsorption member of Hayashi) supporting the base portion of an electrostatic chuck (80 Fig 1) includes a connection region (top center of 85 in Fig 2b, see col 7, ln 5-10 and col 8, ln 5-15), in which the base portion of an electrostatic chuck and the absorption member are interconnected in a central portion of the base portion of an electrostatic chuck (central portion of 85 contacting 80 in Fig 2b), and a separation region (region including 100 Fig 2b), in which the base portion of an electrostatic chuck and the absorption member are spaced apart (spaced apart with the pad 100 therebetween in the same manner as the instant application Fig 3 having 117 in the spaced apart region) from each other on an outer-edge side of the connection region (Fig 2b of Wadensweiler). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi to include the thermal pad 100 arrangement of Wadensweiler Fig 2b including the spaced apart portion at the outer edge and the connection at the central region because Wadensweiler teaches inclusion of the thermal pad (100) provides a predetermined temperature profile across the processing surface of the substrate during processing which improves processing uniformity across the substrate (col 2, ln 39-61) and teaches this as an alternative to an embodiment (Fig 2c) in which there are a plurality of gaps (Fig 2c) or only a central gap (Fig 2a, 2d). Note that in the combination because Hayashi teaches the thermal gaps are formed in the base portion, the modification is made to the arrangement of the protrusions and gaps in Hayashi. Regarding the base portion is made of aluminum, Hayashi teaches the base portion (12b Fig 3) which contains a coolant passage (14c Fig 4) is made of an insulator [0025]. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate supports (abstract), Yamamoto teaches the substrate support includes a base (30 Fig 8) on which the ceramic electrostatic chuck layer is formed [0008], the base (30 Fig 8) contains coolant channels (200e and 200d Fig 8 [0008]) and is formed of aluminum [0008]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi to include the base containing cooling channels is formed of aluminum because Yamamoto teaches this is a suitable material for the same purpose of a coolant containing base. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (base of Yamamoto) for another (base of Hayashi) to obtain predictable results (support of the chucking layer and cooling of the chucking layer).
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hayashi teaches the electrostatic chuck (12 Fig 7 [0041] taught as circular shape in Fig 5 and shown as having a thickness) and the absorption member (130 Fig 7) have a cylindrical shape [0067]. Wadensweiler as applied in the combination teaches the connection region is in a circular shape (taught as pad 100 is ring shaped and therefore the connection region is circular, see Fig 2b and col 8, ln 5-15; see also the disclosure of annular in col 7, ln 5-15) in a concentric relationship with the electrostatic chuck in a plan view (Fig 2b, note that in the combination the electrostatic chuck is also circular and the connection portion is the central portion as shown in Fig 2b). Wadensweiler as applied in the combination teaches the size, shape, and position of the pad can be selected to provide the desired level of thermal heat transfer rates in the central or peripheral regions (col 7, ln 60-col 8, ln 25). Therefore the connection region has a radius that is 20% to 50% of a radius of the electrostatic chuck represents mere optimization of the side connection region to achieve a desired thermal profile because Wadensweiler teaches the size may be chosen.
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Hayashi teaches the adsorption member (130 Fig 7, note this is analogous to 13 in other embodiments) is made of aluminum [0024], [0083]. Regarding the radius of the circular shape forming the connection region relative to the radius of the electrostatic chuck, the analysis remains as applied to claim 2 above that Wadensweiler teaches the radius of the connection region relative to the radius of the electrostatic chuck may be optimized and chosen to achieve a desired thermal profile (col 7, ln 60 to col 8, ln 25).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Wadensweiler teaches the thermal pad (100) that fills the separation region is formed of an elastic material (see col 10, ln 15-40 and the disclosure of multiple elastic materials as the material of the pad).
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hayashi teaches an edge ring support surface (12c Fig 7 is a surface for supporting the edge ring 160 Fig 7, [0076]) arranged around the substrate support surface (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1. Hayashi further teaches a substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate (Fig 3), comprising a processing chamber configured to process the substrate therein (chamber is container 10 Fig 3, with substrate W [0040]); and the substrate support is arranged within the processing chamber (Fig 3 see substrate support 11).
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 9. Hayashi further teaches a heat transfer gas supply unit (gas source and flow path [0029]) configured to supply a heat transfer gas to a gap between the substrate support surface and the substrate supported the substrate support surface [0029].
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 16. Hayashi teaches the connection region is formed by screwing fasteners (60a Fig 7) to the protrusion from a side of the absorption member (130 Fig 7).
Regarding claim 19, the combination remains as applied to claim 1. Hayashi teaches a gas flow path for a heat transfer gas is formed in the base portion (14f Fig 7) [0029].
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Wadensweiler, Yamamoto, and Kiowa (prev. presented US 2017/0278737).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi in view of Wadensweiler and Yamamoto remains as applied to claim 1 above. The combination fails to teach an inert gas supply part configured to supply an inert gas to the separation region. In the same field of endeavor of substrate supports (Fig 2) with different edge heat transfer regions [0068-0069], Kiowa teaches that the annular edge heat transfer regions (DS1, DS2, DS3 Fig 2 [0069]) can be achieved by supplying inert gas [0069] to the edge region between elastic annular members (67-69 Fig 2) [0069] using an inert gas supply part (shown in Fig 4 as gas source GS and gas lines including valves and pressure regulators 104a-c). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi in view of Wadensweiler to include the inert gas supply part to supply an inert gas to the separation region because Kiowa teaches this provides adjustable heat transfer spaces [0068-0071]. Note that Wadensweiler had taught a plurality of separation rings could be used (col 7, ln 5-15).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Kiowa as applied in the combination teaches partition members (67-69 Fig 4) to divide the separation region into a plurality of compartments, and the inert gas supply part is configured to be capable of independently supplying the inert gas to each of the plurality of compartments (Fig 4, each compartment has individually controllable supply valves).
Regarding independent claim 15, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 and 5-6 above. Kiowa as applied in the combination teaches the inert gas supply part includes a pressure adjustment unit (pressure regulators 104a-c Fig. 4) configured to be capable of independently adjusting a supply pressure of the inert gas supplied to each of the plurality of compartments [0095], [0099], [0103], [0113]. Kiowa further teaches a controller [0033], [0050] and the controller is configured to adjust a supply pressure of the inert gas to each of the plurality of compartments according to a desired thermal profile which is reflective of changes in flatness of a surface of the substrate [0106-0116] (note that changes in surface flatness affect the thermal uniformity and thereby affect the need to adjust the thermal profile of the support).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Wadensweiler, Yamamoto, and Morooka (prev. presented US 2010/0002355).
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Hayashi in view of Wadensweiler and Yamamoto remains as applied to claim 1 above for claim 20 and as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 for independent claim 21. The combination fails to teach an empty space formed between the base portion and the absorption member on an outer-edge side of the connection region. Initially it is noted that the gaps of Hayashi Fig 7 in which the base and the absorption member are spaced apart are empty spaces and therefore the obviousness of having a single outer region gap or the plurality of gaps as applied in the combination is inclusive retaining the empty space. However, in the event applicant can argue the combination relies on the included thermal spacer of Wadensweiler, the additional teachings of Morooka are applied herein. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate support (abstract, Fig 1-2), Morooka teaches an outer region between a base (lower portion of 22 Fig 2) and an absorption member (42 Fig 2) around a protrusion (47 Fig 2, note this may be considered to be protruding from the bottom of 22) has a space (48 Fig 1-2) in which thermal separation is made by flowing gas (51 Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi in view of Wadensweiler to include a gas thermal separation as an alternative to the pad of Wadensweiler for providing a different temperature at the edge of the base portion because Hayashi teaches this arrangement allows for cooling gas at the edge [0043] for a lower edge temperature. The combination results in the empty space formed at an outer-edge side of the connection region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument (reply p10-12) that Wadensweiler teaches the gap 100 is between the ceramic layer and the aluminum layer rather than below the aluminum (base) layer is not persuasive because Hayashi teaches gaps (14f Fig 4) between the coolant containing layer and layer 13. In the combination as applied, Wadensweiler is applied to demonstrate the obviousness of moving the location of these gaps. Further, the rejection has been updated to include Yamamoto modifying Hayashi to include layer 12b is formed of aluminum. In response to applicant's argument that there is a different reason for incorporating the teachings of Wadensweiler (reply p12), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p12-13) rely on the arguments directed to the independent claim 1 which has been addressed above.
For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the patentability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0089001 teaches the baseplate (42 Fig 5) is formed o a composite of ceramic and metal [0018].
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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 on 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716