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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 08/28/2026
Claims 1-3,5-13,16,19 and 21-26 are pending
Claims 1-3,5-11 and 21-26 are rejected
Claims 12-13,16 and 19 are withdrawn
Claims 1, 5-6, and 26 have been amended
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20190068163), using the attached machine translation, in view of Foree et al. (US 7601224) and Hidaka et al. (US 20190019713).
Regarding Claim 1:
Hwan teaches a base plate comprising: a circular body having a top surface, a bottom surface, and an outer peripheral surface (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the substrate support 210 comprises a top surface, a bottom surface, and an outer peripheral surface); and a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels within the circular body (gas flow paths 245 are linear and extend through support 210), each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body (gas flow paths 245 extend from side surface 215S to common vertical flow path 241) [Fig. 2, 5 & 0015-0016, 0020, 0022].
Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels comprising a number of channels in a range of 10 to 16 channels.
Foree teaches wherein the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels comprising a number of channels in a range of 10 to 16 channels (the grooves 105 comprise twelve groove portions) [Fig. 3, 5 & Col. 11 lines 3-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of Hwan to be 12 channels, as in Foree, because in the case where the claimed value or ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2.
Hidaka teaches wherein the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 10^10 atom/cm2 (the supporting plate 12 and placing plate 11 are comprised of a sintered compact of ceramic particles, which include silicon carbide particles and aluminum oxide particles; the amount of metal impurities in the sintered compact other than aluminum and silicon is 100 ppm or less) [Fig. 1 & 0016, 0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify base plate of modified Hwan to be a material with an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 10^10 atom/cm2, as in Hidaka, since such is a suitable material for a base plate. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It is noted that 100 ppm or less includes 0 impurities (as 0 is less then 100 ppm). Furthermore, "an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2," also includes 0 copper as 0 is less than 10 x 10^10 atom/cm2.
Regarding Claim 2:
Although Hwan does not specifically disclose "wherein the common point is within a region bounded by a circle with a radius of less than or equal to 15% of a total radius of the circular body," Hwan does disclose that the position of the supply hole in relation to the center of the substrate support is a result effective variable. Specifically, Hwan teaches that when the vertical gas supply hole 241 is provided off-center, the resulting horizontal gas paths 245 have different lengths [Hwan - 0033]. As a result, when the lengths of the horizontal gas flow paths vary, the time for the gas to reach the end of the gas paths varies, and therefore the purge gas amount provided to the edge of the support differs according to the corresponding horizontal gas flow length [Hwan - 0036-0038]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have altered the off-center position of the supply point using the teachings of Hwan to necessarily produce a desired spatial purge flow requirements across the support, wherein the natural spatial orientation of adjustment would necessarily encompass the above claim limitation. 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.
Regarding Claim 3:
Hwan teaches wherein the common point is at a horizontal center of the circular body (vertical gas flow path 241 may match the center of the shaft 250/support 210 and therefore gas flow paths 245 will be equal in length) [Fig. 2, 5 & 0035].
Regarding Claim 5:
Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein the number of channels is 12.
Foree teaches wherein the number of channels is 12 (the grooves 105 comprise twelve groove portions) [Fig. 3, 5 & Col. 11 lines 3-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of Hwan to be 12 channels, as in Foree, because in the case where the claimed value or ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7:
Hwan teaches wherein a cross-section of one of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels is circular (Fig. 2, gas flow paths 245 are circular) [Fig. 2, 5 & 0015-0016, 0020, 0022].
Regarding Claim 9:
Hwan teaches wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels is substantially coplanar with the top surface or the bottom surface of the circular body (Fig. 2, gas flow paths 245 are formed near the top surface of support 210 and coplanar with the top surface) [Fig. 2, 5 & 0015-0016, 0020, 0022].
Regarding Claim 25:
Hwan teaches wherein the common point is not positioned at a horizontal center of the circular body (gas flow paths 245 extend from side surface 215S to common vertical flow path 241, where the center of vertical gas supply hole 241 can be provided a predetermined distance from the center C) [Fig. 5, 0020, 0033].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20190068163), using the attached machine translation, in view of Foree et al. (US 7601224) and Hidaka et al. (US 20190019713), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 25, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 6179924).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein the number of channels is 16.
Zhao teaches wherein the number of channels is 16 (the purge channels 40 can number 3 to 9 or more) [Fig. 4A & Col. 13 lines 54-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of modified Hwan to be 16 channels, as in Zhao, because in the case where the claimed value or ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20190068163), using the attached machine translation, in view of Foree et al. (US 7601224) and Hidaka et al. (US 20190019713), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 25, and further in view of Broadbent et al. (US 5230741).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels has a diameter in a range of 0.0625" to 0.25".
Broadbent teaches wherein each edge purge channel has a diameter of in a range of 0.0625" to 0.25" (gas lines 212a-212j are bored 0.13” in diameter) [Fig. 7 & Col. 4 lines 30-52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of modified Hwan to be in a range of 0.0625" to 0.25", as in Broadbent, because in the case where the claimed value or ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose A heater pedestal configured to support a substrate during processing, the heater pedestal comprising the base plate of claim 1.
Broadbent teaches a heater pedestal configured to support a substrate during processing, the heater pedestal comprising the base plate of claim 1 (platen 200 has heating element 300 disposed in the bottom) [Fig. 7, 9 & Col. 5 lines 28-38].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base plate of modified Hwan to include heating capabilities, as in Broadbent, to provide a uniform distribution of heat to the platen, and by extension, the wafer on the platen [Broadbent - Col. 5 lines 28-38].
Claim(s) 10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20190068163), using the attached machine translation, in view of Foree et al. (US 7601224) and Hidaka et al. (US 20190019713), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 25, and further in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 6375748).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels is not substantially coplanar with the top surface or the bottom surface of the circular body.
Yudovsky teaches wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels is not substantially coplanar with the top surface or the bottom surface of the circular body (the purge gas distribution channel 25 may be angled upwardly) [Fig. 6 & Col. 5 lines 50-62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of modified Hwan to be not coplanar with the bottom or top surfaces, as in Yudovsky, to improve ease of cleaning [Yudovsky - Col. 5 lines 50-62].
Regarding Claim 23:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are angled towards the top surface.
Yudovsky teaches wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are angled towards the top surface (the purge gas distribution channel 25 may be angled upwardly) [Fig. 6 & Col. 5 lines 50-62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of modified Hwan to be not coplanar with the bottom or top surfaces, as in Yudovsky, to improve ease of cleaning [Yudovsky - Col. 5 lines 50-62].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20190068163), using the attached machine translation, in view of Foree et al. (US 7601224) and Hidaka et al. (US 20190019713), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 25, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 20010042514).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 21:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are closer to the top surface than the bottom surface.
Mizuno teaches wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are closer to the top surface than the bottom surface (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the supply passages 203 are closer to the top surface of heating holder 3) [Fig. 3 & 0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of modified Hwan to be closer to a bottom surface, as in Mizuno, since Mizuno establishes placing channels closer to a bottom surface a known technique in the art [Mizuno - 0068]. As such, placing channels near the bottom surface would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D.).
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20190068163), using the attached machine translation, in view of Foree et al. (US 7601224) and Hidaka et al. (US 20190019713), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 25, and further in view of Umotoy (US 20030136520).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 22:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are closer to the bottom surface than the top surface.
Umotoy teaches wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are closer to the bottom surface than the top surface (the channel 530 may be configured in plural like Figs. 2A-3C, and are located at bottom surface of body 502) [Fig. 2A-3C, 5 & 0070]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of modified Hwan to be closer to a bottom surface, as in Umotoy, since Umotoy establishes placing channels closer to a bottom surface a known technique in the art [Umotoy - 0070]. As such, placing channels near the bottom surface would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D.). Furthermore, the arrangement of the channels of Umotoy (specifically the channel 548 located near the bottom surface) helps prevent leakage [Umotoy - 0071].
Regarding Claim 24:
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are angled towards the bottom surface.
Umotoy teaches wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are angled towards the bottom surface (the channel 530 may be configured in plural like Figs. 2A-3C; second hole channel 548 is angled downward towards second surface 514) [Fig. 2A-3C, 5 & 0070-0071]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of modified Hwan to angle towards the bottom surface, as in Umotoy, to prevent leakage [Umotoy - 0071].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan et al. (KR 20190068163), using the attached machine translation, in view of Foree et al. (US 7601224).
Regarding Claim 26:
Hwan teaches a base plate comprising: a circular body having a top surface, a bottom surface, and an outer peripheral surface (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the substrate support 210 comprises a top surface, a bottom surface, and an outer peripheral surface); and a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels within the circular body (gas flow paths 245 are linear and extend through support 210), each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body (gas flow paths 245 extend from side surface 215S to common vertical flow path 241), wherein the common point is not positioned at a horizontal center of the circular body (gas flow paths 245 extend from side surface 215S to common vertical flow path 241, where the center of vertical gas supply hole 241 can be provided a predetermined distance from the center C) [Fig. 2, 5 & 0015-0016, 0020, 0022, 0033].
Hwan does not specifically disclose wherein the common point is within a region bounded by a circle with a radius of less than or equal to 15% of a total radius of the circular body.
Although Hwan does not specifically disclose "wherein the common point is within a region bounded by a circle with a radius of less than or equal to 15% of a total radius of the circular body," Hwan does disclose that the position of the supply hole in relation to the center of the substrate support is a result effective variable. Specifically, Hwan teaches that when the vertical gas supply hole 241 is provided off-center, the resulting horizontal gas paths 245 have different lengths [Hwan - 0033]. As a result, when the lengths of the horizontal gas flow paths vary, the time for the gas to reach the end of the gas paths varies, and therefore the purge gas amount provided to the edge of the support differs according to the corresponding horizontal gas flow length [Hwan - 0036-0038]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have altered the off-center position of the supply point using the teachings of Hwan to necessarily produce a desired spatial purge flow requirements across the support, wherein the natural spatial orientation of adjustment would necessarily encompass the above claim limitation. 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.
Modified Hwan does not specifically disclose the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels comprises in a range of 10 to 16 channels.
Foree teaches wherein the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels comprising a number of channels in a range of 10 to 16 channels (the grooves 105 comprise twelve groove portions) [Fig. 3, 5 & Col. 11 lines 3-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channels of Hwan to be 12 channels, as in Foree, because in the case where the claimed value or ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 22, and 24 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 22, and 24 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11 and 21-26 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Foree et al. (US 7601224), Hidaka et al. (US 20190019713), and Mizuno et al. (US 20010042514) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
