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
Response to Amendment
Applicants' argument only, filed on 04/21/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-20 from the non-final office action, mailed on 01/26/2026, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
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” 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) The “functionally graded” of Claims 14-15 are not clear.
The term “functionally graded” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
For the purpose of examination,
The applicants indicate FGM comprising “AlN”, see the [0038 and 0040] of the applicants’ published application, thus, when the prior art teaches “AIN”, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(2) The “graded filler” of Claim 15 is not clear,
The term “graded” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further, it is not clear what difference is required between the recited “dielectric material” and the “graded filler material” of Claim 15. If the graded filler material is a dielectric material, what is different between the two materials?
The metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 unique 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 again, the material has its own and unique CTE and thermal conductivity, thus when the layer 157 is the metal of tungsten (W) or molybdenum (Mo), the thermal conductivity of the metal for the layer 157 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, 9 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 unique 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 own unique CTE different from the CTE of the “AIN” ceramic for the base substrate material and a thermal conductivity of TPG is greater than a thermal conductivity of the AIN 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 9,
Figs. 3C and 5E shows plural interlayers between the heat spreader 4 or 600 and the upper surface of the baseplate 33 (the claimed “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”).
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 wear resistance and high heat resistance” indicates high 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 112 rejection above above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
In regards to the restriction requirement, the applicants’ argument is found persuasive, therefore, the examiner sets forth new grounds of the rejections as discussed in the claim rejection above.
In regards to the 102 rejection based on ‘610, the applicants argue that first, the heater dielectric layer 140 could not reasonably be interpreted as the baseplate of claim 20 as Park includes base 110. Park therefore clearly distinguishes the heater dielectric layer 140 from a baseplate. Second, Park is silent as to the heat distribution layer 157 being configured to spread heat generated by the heater layer in a lateral direction, and third, Park is silent as to its base 110 comprising a first material that has a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and a first thermal conductivity and heat distribution layer 157 comprising a second material that has a second CTE and a second thermal conductivity greater than the first thermal conductivity (of the base 110) see page 6.
This argument is found not persuasive.
First, the examiner maintains the heater dielectric layer 140 is interpreted as the baseplate. The examiner is not limited to the naming of the prior art.
Second, the examiner maintains heat distribution layer 157 is configured to spread heat generated by the heater layer in a lateral direction, see [0082] disclosing “The heat distribution layer 157 may more uniformly distribute the heat generated from the heater electrode 145”.
Third, the examiner maintains ‘610 clearly teaches the feature, because the CTE and thermal conductivity are material’s unique parameters to define the material characters. Therefore, when two different materials are provided, each of the two materials is considered having its own CTE and thermal conductivity. ‘610 teaches the layer 157 has the metal of tungsten (W) or molybdenum (Mo), and the layer 140 has ceramic of AIN, it is commonly well-known that the thermal conductivity of the metal is greater than the ceramic.
In regards to the 102 rejection based on ‘676, the applicants argue that first, the heater dielectric layer 140 could not reasonably be interpreted as the baseplate of claim 20 as Park includes base 110. Park therefore clearly distinguishes the heater dielectric layer 140 from a baseplate. Second, Park is silent as to the heat distribution layer 157 being configured to spread heat generated by the heater layer in a lateral direction, and third, Park is silent as to its base 110 comprising a first material that has a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and a first thermal conductivity and heat distribution layer 157 comprising a second material that has a second CTE and a second thermal
This argument is found not persuasive.
The examiner maintains ‘676 clearly teaches the features.
The CTE and thermal conductivity are material’s unique parameters to define the material characters. Therefore, when two different materials are provided, each of the two materials is considered having its own CTE and thermal conductivity. ‘676 clearly teaches AIN material and TPG material for the two different structures. It is well-known that the TPG’s thermal conductivity is greater than the AIN material.
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
Prosecution Insights