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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 16, 19, and 21-26 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-10 are currently amended.
Claims 12-13, 16, and 19 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 21-26 are newly added.
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.
(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 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umotoy (US 20030136520 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Umotoy teaches the base plate of claim 1, which includes
a base plate (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0063], support body 502) comprising: a circular body having a top surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0064], first surface 512), a bottom surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0064], second surface 514), and an outer peripheral surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, vertical outer side surface of body 502); and
a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels within the circular body (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0070], where the channel 530 may be configured in plural like Figs. 2A-3C), each of the plurality of substantially liner edge purge channels extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body (Umotoy, Figs. 3A-3C, [0051]-[0055], channels extend from outer peripheral surface to a common point within the body), wherein the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2.(Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0063], body 502 may be made of a ceramic, such as alumina doped with titanium oxide, [0038]),
wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are closer to the bottom surface than the top surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0070], where the channel 530 may be configured in plural like Figs. 2A-3C, and are located at bottom surface of body 502).
Regarding claim 24, Umotoy teaches the base plate of claim 1, which includes
a base plate (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0063], support body 502) comprising: a circular body having a top surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0064], first surface 512), a bottom surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0064], second surface 514), and an outer peripheral surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, vertical outer side surface of body 502); and
a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels within the circular body (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0070], where the channel 530 may be configured in plural like Figs. 2A-3C), each of the plurality of substantially liner edge purge channels extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body (Umotoy, Figs. 3A-3C, [0051]-[0055], channels extend from outer peripheral surface to a common point within the body), wherein the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2 (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0063], body 502 may be made of a ceramic, such as alumina doped with titanium oxide, [0038]),
wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are angled towards the bottom surface (Umotoy, Fig. 5, [0070]-[0071], where the channel 530 may be configured in plural like Figs. 2A-3C, and where second hole channel 548 is angled downward towards second surface 514).
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 1-3, 5, 7-11, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan (KR 20190068163 A, using attached English machine translation), in view of Broadbent (US 5230741 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hwan teaches a base plate (Fig. 2, [0015], substrate support 210) comprising: a circular body having a top surface (Fig. 2, substrate support 210 is circular, and a substrate S is seated on upper surface of support 210, [0016]), a bottom surface (Fig. 2, [0016], bottom surface of support 210 where shaft 250 is coupled), and an outer peripheral surface (Fig. 2, [0022], side surface 215S of support 210); and
a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels within the circular body (Fig. 5, [0020] gas flow paths 245 are linear and extend through support 210), each of the plurality of substantially liner edge purge channels extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body (Fig. 5, [0020], gas flow paths 245 extend from side surface 215S to common vertical flow path 241).
Hwan fails to teach wherein the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2.
However, Broadbent teaches wherein the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2 (Broadbent, Fig. 7, C4 L30-52, platen 200 which contain gas lines 212a-212j is made from aluminum).
Broadbent is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have made the substrate support of Hwan out of aluminum in the manner of Broadbent as it would allow for easy forming of the gas lines of sufficient size by boring into a block of aluminum versus other forming methods (Broadbent, C4 L30-52).
Regarding claim 2, Hwan fails to explicitly teach 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.
While Hwan does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Hwan teaches wherein the position of the supply hole in relation to the center of the substrate support is a results 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 ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing 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.
Regarding claim 3, Hwan teaches wherein the common point is at a horizontal center of the circular body ([0035], 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).
Regarding claim 5, Hwan teaches wherein the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels comprises a number of channels in a range of 4 to 16 channels (Fig. 5, eight gas flow paths 245 are provided in support 210). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
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).
Regarding claim 8, Hwan fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channel has a diameter of in a range of 0.0625" to 0.25".
However, Broadbent teaches wherein each edge purge channel has a diameter of in a range of 0.0625" to 0.25" (Broadbent, Fig. 7, C4 L30-52, gas lines 212a-212j are bored 0.13” in diameter). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have made the substrate support of Hwan out of aluminum in the manner of Broadbent as it would allow for easy forming of the gas lines of sufficient size by boring into a block of aluminum versus other forming methods (Broadbent, C4 L30-52).
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).
Regarding claim 10, Hwan fails to teach wherein each channel of the plurality of edge purge channels is not substantially coplanar with the top surface or the bottom surface of the circular body.
However, Broadbent teaches wherein each channel of the plurality of edge purge channels is not substantially coplanar with the top surface or the bottom surface of the circular body (Broadbent, Fig. 7, gas lines 212a-212j are angled, running from the bottom to top of platen).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have made the substrate support of Hwan out of aluminum in the manner of Broadbent as it would allow for easy forming of the gas lines of sufficient size by boring into a block of aluminum versus other forming methods (Broadbent, C4 L30-52).
Regarding claim 11, Hwan fails to teach a heater pedestal configured to support a substrate during processing, the heater pedestal comprising the base plate of claim 1.
However, Broadbent teaches a heater pedestal configured to support a substrate during processing, the heater pedestal comprising the base plate of claim 1 (Broadbent, C5 L28-38, platen 200 has heating element 300 disposed in the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the bottom platen block groove and heater of Broadbent into the apparatus of Hwan as doing so would provide a uniform distribution of heat to the platen, and by extension, the wafer on the platen (Broadbent, C5 L28-38).
Regarding claim 21, Hwan teaches wherein each of the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels are closer to the top surface than the bottom surface (Hwan, Figs. 1 & 5, [0020] gas flow paths 245 are located closer to upper surface of support 210 than bottom surface of 210).
Regarding claim 25, Hwan teaches wherein the common point is not positioned at a horizontal center of the circular body (Fig. 5, [0020], 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, [0033]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan (KR 20190068163 A) in view of Broadbent (US 5230741 A), as applied in claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 21, and 25, and further in view of Zhao (US 6179924 B1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 21, and 25 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hwan fails to teach wherein the number of channels is six.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the number of channels is six (Zhao, Fig. 4A, C12 L50 – C13 L61, plural purge channels 40 run radially from a singular supply point out to side perimeter 51 of metal block 31, where the number of purge channels 40 can be 3 to 9).
Zhao is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. 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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky (US 20020069820 A1), further in view of Umotoy (US 20030136520 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Yudovsky teaches the base plate of claim 1, which includes
a base plate (Yudovsky, Fig. 2, [0039], plate 210) comprising: a circular body having a top surface (Yudovsky, Fig. 2, [0039], first side 212), a bottom surface (Yudovsky, Fig. 2, [0039], second side 214), and an outer peripheral surface (Yudovsky, Fig. 2, vertical outer side surface of plate 210); and
a linear edge purge channel within the circular, extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body (Yudovsky, Fig. 2, [0042]-[0044], purge passage 268 extends from near center, port 272, towards outer surface of plate 210), wherein the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2 (Yudovsky, plate 210 is made of aluminum), and
wherein the edge purge channel are angled towards the top surface (Yudovsky, Fig. 2, [0042]-[0044], purge passage 268 angles upward towards first side 212).
Yudovsky fails to explicitly teach a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels, each of the plurality of substantially liner edge purge channels extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body.
However, Umotoy teaches a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels, each of the plurality of substantially liner edge purge channels extending from the outer peripheral surface to a common point within the circular body (Umotoy, Figs. 2A-3C, Fig. 5, [0049]-[0055], [0069]-[0070], where channel 530, which leads to plenum 532, can be configured as one channel or plural channels, like the embodiments shown in Figs. 3A-3C).
Umotoy is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have configured the purge channels in plural in the manner taught by Umotoy as doing so would provide mechanisms to selectively balance or unbalance the purge flow as desired (Umotoy, [0051]-[0055]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan (KR 20190068163 A), in view of Zhao (US 6179924 B1).
Regarding claim 26, Hwan teaches a base plate (Fig. 2, [0015], substrate support 210) comprising:
a circular body having a top surface (Fig. 2, substrate support 210 is circular, and a substrate S is seated on upper surface of support 210, [0016]), a bottom surface (Fig. 2, [0016], bottom surface of support 210 where shaft 250 is coupled), and an outer peripheral surface (Fig. 2, [0022], side surface 215S of support 210); and
a plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels within the circular body (Fig. 5, [0020] 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 (Fig. 5, [0020], 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 (Fig. 5, [0020], 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, [0033]).
Hwan fails to explicitly teach 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.
While Hwan does not explicitly teach the limitation above, Hwan teaches wherein the position of the supply hole in relation to the center of the substrate support is a results 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 ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing 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.
Hwan fails to teach wherein the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels comprises six channels.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the plurality of substantially linear edge purge channels comprises six channels (Zhao, Fig. 4A, C12 L50 – C13 L61, plural purge channels 40 run radially from a singular supply point out to side perimeter 51 of metal block 31, where the number of purge channels 40 can be 3 to 9). 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
In the Applicant’s response filed 04/09/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Hwan in view of Broadbent, teach the claim limitation “the base plate has an atomic copper level of less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2” of independent claim 1. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but finds them unpersuasive. While Hwan details a substrate support having purge channels, Hwan is silent as to what material the substrate support is formed. However, Broadbent teaches wherein a platen having gas lines bored within can made from aluminum, or stainless steel (Broadbent, C3 L61-64), where stainless steel is an alloy containing copper. The claim limitation recites “level less than or equal to 10 x 1010 atom/cm2”, including a level of zero, which Broadbent is capable of meeting wherein the platen is made from aluminum.
In the Applicant’s response filed 04/09/2026, the Applicant asserts that the statement by the Examiner that Hwan teaches "a vertical supply port 241 through which each gas flow path 245 is commonly connected. Gas flows from supply port 241 in eight separate directions via eight flow paths 245 towards eight separate peripheral points on side surface 215S" is not supported by Hwan in regard to the rejection of claim 5. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. Paragraph [0021] and Figs. 2 & 5 of Hwan teach the direction of purge gas flow, wherein the output end ultimately is buffer space BS1 located at the end of the plurality of gas flow paths 245, and the input of the purge gas is supplied from the outside through the purge gas supply pipe. Paragraph [0019] of Hwan teaches wherein the lower end of the of vertical purge gas flow path 241 is in communication with the purge gas supply pipe, and the upper end of the vertical gas flow path 241 is in communication with the plurality of purge flow paths 245. Paragraph [0020] and Fig. 5 teach wherein the plurality of purge flow gas paths 245 communicate with the upper end of the vertical purge flow path 241, and the other end of each path 245 communicates with buffer space BS1. Therefore, the gas flow direction is directed from the outside gas supply, to the bottom end of vertical path 241, through each end of flow paths 245 that are connected to path 241 (exemplified by Fig. 5), and finally radially outward towards buffer space BS1 located on the side surfaces of 215S, which correspond to eight different radial directions.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights