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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11, drawn to a base plate apparatus, in the reply filed on 05/29/2025 is acknowledged.
In the response to the Requirement for Restriction filed 5/29/2025, the Applicant asserts that since claim 12 was amended such that it now depends from claim 1, claims 12-13, 16, and 19 are now also drawn to the elected invention and should be examined in addition to claims 1-11. While the amendment to independent claim 12 recites the subject matter of claim 1 (a base plate apparatus), claim 12 is still drawn to a method of forming and remains as an independent claim, and is therefore subject to restriction.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because claims 12-20 and claims 1-11 are related as process of making (method of forming a base plate apparatus) and product made (a base plate apparatus). The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product can be made by a 3-D printing technique.
Therefore, claims 12-13, 16, and 19 remain currently withdrawn from consideration. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/07/2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 6 utilizing reference Hwan, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 6 been withdrawn. The Examiner has made new grounds of rejection of claim 6 following the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/07/2025, therefore necessitating this action to also be NON-FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/07/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/07/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 16, and 19 are pending.
Claims 4, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended.
Claims 12-13, 16, and 19 are currently withdrawn.
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, and 7-11 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 channel 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 the 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 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 edge purge channels is circular (Fig. 2, gas flow paths 245 are circular).
Regarding claim 8, Hwan fails to teach wherein each 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 channel of the plurality of 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).
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, and 7-11, and further in view of Zhao (US 6179924 B1).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11 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.
Response to Arguments, Continued
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/7/2025, 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. Therefore, choosing aluminum as taught by Broadbent is capable of meeting the claim limitation.
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/7/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Hwan, teach the claim limitation “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” of claim 2, not being supported as a results effective variable rejection. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but finds them unpersuasive. 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.
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/7/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Hwan, teach the claim limitation “wherein the plurality of edge purge channels comprises a number of channels in a range of 4 to 16 channels” of claim 5. The Applicant asserts that Hwan only teaches three horizontal gas glow paths 245. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but finds them unpersuasive. 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 (Hwan, Fig. 2, [0020]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yudovsky (US 20020069820 A1) teaches branching purge channels with off-center supply channel.
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