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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election, with traverse of Species A (Fig. 2) in the reply, filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. Applicants designate claims 1-14 as reading into the elected Species A. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
(1) Paragraph [0047] of the present application explicitly states that “although each of the embodiments is described above as having certain features, any one or more of those features described with respect to any embodiment of the disclosure can be implemented in and/or combined with features of any of the other embodiments, even if that combination is not explicitly described. In other words, the described embodiments are not mutually exclusive, and permutations of one or more of the embodiments with one another remain within the scope of this disclosure”. The requirement to elect one Species is therefore improper as the present application explains that the different figures can be combined, see page 2.
The argument is found persuasive.
The examiner accepts the applicants’ argument and withdrawn the election of species, set forth on 10/22/2025.
Further, as the applicants clearly admitted that the described embodiments are not mutually exclusive and are mere variants, the examiner will examine accordingly, thus when one embodiment is disclosed, the rest will be considered being an obvious variant the disclosed embodiment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements, filed on 04/17/2025, fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “wherein individual ones of the plurality of interlayers alternate with layers of the first material” of Claim11 would have a better form if amended to be:
“wherein each of the plurality of interlayers alternate with a layer of the first material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards the recited “CTE is different” “CTE is greater”, “between the first CTE and the second CTE”, “isotropic”, “anisotropic”, “functionally graded material (FGM)” or etc.,
The are considered being a “material property”
When a prior teaches the material disclosed in the applicants’ specification, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20160035610, hereafter ‘610).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘610 teaches:
chuck on which a wafer is mounted (Fig. 1, see the semiconductor fabricating apparatus 1000 of Fig. 16, [0002], the claimed “A substrate support for a substrate processing system”);
the heater dielectric layer 140 may be formed of dielectric such as ceramic (e.g., Al2O3, AlN, or Y2O3) and/or resin (e.g., polyimide) ([0080], note the ceramic material has its own CTE and thermal conductivity, the claimed “the substrate support comprising: a baseplate that comprises a first material that has a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and a first thermal conductivity; a heater layer embedded within the baseplate”);
The heater dielectric layer 140 may include an embedded heater electrode 145 ([0080], the claimed “a heater layer embedded within the baseplate”);
a heat distribution layer 157 provided between the heater dielectric layer 140 and the electrostatic dielectric layer 150, and the heat distribution layer 157 may more uniformly distribute the heat generated from the heater electrode 145 ([0082], the claimed “a heat spreader disposed on the baseplate, wherein the heat spreader is configured to spread heat generated by the heater layer in a lateral direction”);
the heat distribution layer 157 may include at least one of aluminum nitride (AlN), boron nitride (BN), tungsten (W), or molybdenum (Mo) ([0082], note when the layer 157 is metal, the CTE is greater than the ceramic for the layer 140, the claimed “and wherein the heat spreader comprises a second material that has a second CTE and a second thermal conductivity greater than the first thermal conductivity”);
the electrostatic dielectric layer 150 ([0082], the claimed “and a cap layer disposed on the heat spreader”).
Claims 1-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mariner et al. (US 20080066676, hereafter ‘676).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘676 teaches:
a disk-shaped metallic or ceramic substrate 12 having electrode 16 buried therein (not shown), whose top surface 13 serves as a supporting surface for a substrate (Fig. 1, [0035], the claimed “A baseplate for a substrate support”);
the electrode may function as a resistive heating element… The electrode can be embedded within the substrate of the heater the electrode is in the form of a film electrode ([0037-0039], see also metal heater with electrode 4001 of Fig. 3, [0043] and conducting electrode 41 of Fig. 4, [0048], the claimed “the baseplate comprising: a heater layer configured to selectively heat the baseplate”);
a TPG heat spreader 600, to spatially distribute and regulate heat removal and/or distribution to the substrate W, for relatively uniform temperature across the substrate W (Fig. 3 or 5, [0042], the claimed “and a heat spreader disposed between the heater layer and an upper surface of the baseplate, wherein the heat spreader is configured to distribute heat provided by the heater layer throughout the baseplate”);
ceramic substrate 12 ([0035]) and In a ceramic core heater, the base substrate 10 comprises an electrically insulating material ([0044], see the various materials of [0044], such as AlN, further note each material has its own CTE and thermal conductivity, the claimed “and wherein the baseplate comprises a first material that has a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and a first thermal conductivity”);
a TPG heat spreader 600 ([0042], note the “TPG” means thermal pyrolytic graphite and is extremely thermally conductive, see [0030], further note the TPG has a CTE different from the CTE of the ceramic having one of the base substrate material and a thermal conductivity greater than a thermal conductivity of the ceramic, the claimed “and the heat spreader comprises a second material that has a second CTE different from the first CTE and a second thermal conductivity greater than the first thermal conductivity”).
Regarding to Claim 2,
‘676 teaches the electrode may function as a resistive heating element… The electrode can be embedded within the substrate of the heater the electrode is in the form of a film electrode ([0037-0039], the claimed “wherein the heater layer comprises resistive heating elements”).
Regarding to Claim 3,
‘676 teaches ceramic substrate 12 ([0035]) and In a ceramic core heater, the base substrate 10 comprises an electrically insulating material ([0044], the claimed “wherein the first material is dielectric”).
Regarding to Claim 4,
‘676 teaches a TPG heat spreader 600 ([0042], the “TPG” means thermal pyrolytic graphite and is extremely thermally conductive, see [0030], the claimed “wherein the second material comprises at least one of carbon, pyrolytic graphite, molybdenum-graphite, and diamond”).
Regarding to Claims 5-6,
As discussed in the claim 1 above, ‘676 teaches ceramic substrate comprising AlN and TPG heat spreader, the same material as the applicants’ material, see the claim interpretation above (the claimed “wherein the second CTE is different from the first CTE” of Claim 5, and “wherein the second CTE is greater than the first CTE” of Claim 6).
Regarding to Claim 13,
‘676 teaches Graphite is an anisotropic material with a unique ability to direct heat in a preferred direction ([0030], the claimed “wherein the heat spreader has at least one of anisotropic thermal conductivity and an anisotropic CTE”).
Regarding to Claim 14,
‘676 teaches ceramic substrate 12 ([0035]) and In a ceramic core heater, the base substrate 10 comprises an electrically insulating material… The base substrate 10 is characterized has having high wear resistance and high heat resistance properties ([0044], note the “high” indicates functionally graded, the claimed ““wherein the baseplate further comprises a functionally graded material (FGM)”).
Further note, the applicants also indicate FGM comprising “AlN”, see the [0038 and 0040] of the applicants’ published application, therefore, the [0044] of ‘676 disclosing “AlN”, also clearly reads into the “FGM”, see the claim interpretation above).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘676 in view of Fan et al. (US 20120234524, hereafter ‘524).
Regarding to Claim 7,
‘676 teaches a TPG heat spreader 600 ([0042], note the TPG has its own CTE (the claimed “wherein the heat spreader comprises an inner layer that has the second CTE”).
‘676 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 7: wherein the heat spreader comprises an inner layer that has the second CTE and an outer layer comprising a third material that has a third CTE that is between the first CTE and the second CTE.
‘524 is analogous art in the field of heat spreader ([0001], which is similar to the heat spreader of ‘676). ‘524 teaches Applicants have found that a composite with a high thermal conductivity material such as TPG sandwiched or encapsulated between low CTE metal substrates provides a composite exhibiting a relatively low CTE, and a relatively high thermal conductivity ([0045]), and The metal may be chosen, for example, from molybdenum ([0048]). Note the CTE of the metal Mo is greater than CTE of the ceramic AlN.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have sandwiched or encapsulated the TPG of ‘676 between Mo metal layers, for the purpose of providing a composite with improved performance in terms of both thermal conductivity and coefficient of thermal expansion.
Regarding to Claim 12,
As discussed in the claim 7 rejection above, the metal Mo is added as an additional layer of the heat spreader (note metal Mo is isotropic, the claimed “wherein the heat spreader is isotropic”).
Claims 8-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘610 or ‘676 and ‘524, in view of Applicants’ admittance.
Regarding to Claims 8-11 and 15-19,
‘610, ‘676 and ‘524 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 8: wherein the heat spreader comprises a middle layer disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer.
Claim 9: further comprising a plurality of interlayers disposed at least one of (i) between the heat spreader and the upper surface of the baseplate and (ii) between the heat spreader and the heater layer.
Claim 10: wherein the plurality of interlayers comprises a third material that has a third CTE that is between the first CTE and the second CTE.
Claim 11: wherein individual ones of the plurality of interlayers alternate with layers of the first material.
Claim 15: A substrate support for a substrate processing system, the substrate support comprising: a baseplate comprising a functionally graded material (FGM), wherein the FGM comprises a dielectric material and a graded filler material; and a heat spreader embedded within the baseplate, wherein the heat spreader is configured to distribute heat throughout the baseplate, and wherein the heat spreader has a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and a first thermal conductivity, wherein the FGM has a second CTE and a second thermal conductivity.
Claim 16: wherein the FGM is a functionally graded ceramic (FGC).
Claim 17: wherein the FGC is a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) material.
Claim 18: wherein the second CTE of the FGM varies in a vertical direction.
Claim 19: wherein the first CTE is different from the second CTE.
First, the examiner clarifies that:
Claim 8 is a feature of the embodiment of Fig. 2,
Claims 9-11 are features of the embodiment of Fig. 3
Claims 15-19 are features of the embodiment of Fig. 4
As the applicants clearly acknowledged that each embodiment is not mutually exclusive and mere obvious variant, thus:
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ‘610 or the combination of ‘676 and ‘524, so to be each recited feature of Figs. 2-4 above, for its suitability as known form with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718