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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi et al., US 2021/0043476 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0116689 or Takebayashi, US 2017/0280509 or Kitajima, US 2019/0295876 or Jindo et al., US 2014/0272378 and Arai et al., JP 2001-156042.
Regarding independent claim 1, Koizumi et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including a wafer placement table 14 comprising: a ceramic base 20 having a wafer placement surface on its top surface where a wafer W is able to be placed and incorporating an electrode 20a; a cooling base 18 having a refrigerant flow channel 19 comprising a supply port 19c (the most upstream part) and an outlet port 19d (the most downstream part); wherein in an area that overlaps the wafer placement surface in plan view of the refrigerant flow channel, a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at a most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant outlet flow channel (outlet port 19d) is less than the cross- sectional area at a most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant inlet flow channel (supply port 19c); see, for example, Figs. 1, 6A-K, and 8A-C, and their descriptions, Figs. 1, and 8A-C are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
294
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Koizumi et al. does not expressly disclose a bonding layer that bonds the ceramic base with the cooling base. Lee et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a bonding layer 235 that bonds a ceramic base 220 with a cooling base 230 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Takebayashi discloses a wafer placement table comprising bonding layers 81/82 that bonds a ceramic base 26 with a cooling base 60 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
274
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also, Kitajima discloses a wafer placement table comprising a bonding layer 20A that bonds a ceramic base 31 with a cooling base 10 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
368
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Jindo et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a bonding layer that bonds a ceramic base with a cooling base (see, for example, paragraphs 0004-0071).
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Koizumi et al. as to further comprise the claimed bonding layer because such means/structure/configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable means/structure/configuration to effectively and efficiently bonding the ceramic base with the cooling base.
With respect to the width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention clearly discloses that the adjustment of the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel of the instant invention can be done by adjusting either the height or the width of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that adjusting either the width or the height of the refrigerant flow channel would provide the same desired results. This notwithstanding, Arai et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a refrigerant flow channel having a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at a most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant outlet flow channel is less than the cross-sectional area at a most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant inlet flow channel, wherein a height of the refrigerant flow channel is constant and a width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, Figs. 3-5 and their descriptions, especially, paragraphs 0006/0012/0018/0022/0024, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
202
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerant flow channel of the apparatus of Koizumi et al. so that the width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable alternate configuration for effectively and efficiently provide uniform wafer temperature and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Regarding the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part, a person skilled in the art can make reasonable adjustments according to practical needs, which is easy to do for a person skilled in the art without the need for creative labor and without obtaining an unexpected technical effect of the claimed limitation. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired heat removal/refrigerant flow, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that Koizumi et al. discloses that the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel reduces from the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to the refrigerant inlet flow channel toward the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to the refrigerant outlet flow channel.
Concerning claim 5, Jindo et al. discloses the use of a cooling base made of a metal matrix composite material, and the use of a bonding layer made of a metal bonding layer (see, for example, paragraphs 0004-0071, especially paragraphs 0004-0028). Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to use the claimed materials for the cooling base and the bonding layer because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for effectively and efficiently provide heat dissipation and high strength to endure processing, and reduce stress due to thermal expansion.
With respect to claim 6, it should be noted that Koizumi et al. discloses that the apparatus further comprises through holes for lift pins extending through the cooling base in an up and down direction (see, for example, paragraphs 0004 and 0045). Koizumi et al. further discloses that heat removal uniformity is deteriorated around the through holes areas, but that by varying the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel proximate the poor heat removal areas (such as an area around/proximate a through hole) so that a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in the area of poor heat removal is less than a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area outside the area of poor heat removal, heat removal is controlled so that non-uniformity of the heat removal can be eliminated (see, for example, paragraphs 0004 and 0045-0047). Regarding the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area proximate to the hole being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area not proximate to the hole, a person skilled in the art can make reasonable adjustments according to practical needs, which is easy to do for a person skilled in the art without the need for creative labor and without obtaining an unexpected technical effect of the claimed limitation. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired heat removal/refrigerant flow, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 7-8, it should be noted that Koizumi et al. discloses that the refrigerant flow channel is formed in a zig-zag or a spiral shape in plan view (see, for example, Figs. 5A-5B); and wherein the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel continuously reduces at a constant gradient or in a stepwise manner (see, for example, Fig. 8A).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al., JP 2001-156042 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0116689 or Takebayashi, US 2017/0280509 or Kitajima, US 2019/0295876 or Jindo et al., US 2014/0272378.
Regarding independent claim 1, Arai et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including a wafer placement table comprising: a base having a wafer placement surface on its top surface where a wafer 4 is able to be placed and incorporating an electrode (paragraph 0013); a cooling base 1 having a refrigerant flow channel 6 comprising a supply port (the most upstream part) and an outlet port (the most downstream part); wherein in an area that overlaps the wafer placement surface in plan view of the refrigerant flow channel, a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at a most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant outlet flow channel is less than the cross- sectional area at a most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant inlet flow channel; wherein a height of the refrigerant flow channel is constant and a width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel; (see, for example, Figs. 1, and 3-4, and their descriptions, especially, paragraphs 0006/0012/0018/0022/0024, Figs. 3-4 are shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
221
234
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
160
130
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Arai et al. does not expressly disclose that the base is a ceramic base and the claimed bonding layer. Lee et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a bonding layer 235 that bonds a ceramic base 220 with a cooling base 230 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Takebayashi discloses a wafer placement table comprising bonding layers 81/82 that bonds a ceramic base 26 with a cooling base 60 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
274
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also, Kitajima discloses a wafer placement table comprising a bonding layer 20A that bonds a ceramic base 31 with a cooling base 10 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
368
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Jindo et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a bonding layer that bonds a ceramic base with a cooling base (see, for example, paragraphs 0004-0071).
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Arai et al. as to further comprise the claimed ceramic base and the claimed bonding layer because such material/means/structure/configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable material/means/structure/configuration to effectively and efficiently place and support the wafer in the chamber, and bond the base with the cooling base, respectively.
Regarding the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part, a person skilled in the art can make reasonable adjustments according to practical needs, which is easy to do for a person skilled in the art without the need for creative labor and without obtaining an unexpected technical effect of the claimed limitation. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired heat removal/refrigerant flow, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel of the apparatus of Arai et al. reduces from the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to the refrigerant inlet flow channel toward the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to the refrigerant outlet flow channel (see, for example, Figs. 3-4).
Concerning claim 5, Jindo et al. discloses the use of a cooling base made of a metal matrix composite material, and the use of a bonding layer made of a metal bonding layer (see, for example, paragraphs 0004-0071, especially paragraphs 0004-0028). Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to use the claimed materials for the cooling base and the bonding layer because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for effectively and efficiently provide heat dissipation and high strength to endure processing, and reduce stress due to thermal expansion.
With respect to claims 7-8, it should be noted that Arai et al. discloses that the refrigerant flow channel is formed in a zig-zag or a spiral shape in plan view (see, for example, Fig. 4); and wherein the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel continuously reduces at a constant gradient or in a stepwise manner (see, for example, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al., JP 2001-156042 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0116689 or Takebayashi, US 2017/0280509 or Kitajima, US 2019/0295876 or Jindo et al., US 2014/0272378, as applied to claims 1-2, 5 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Koizumi et al., US 2021/0043476.
With respect to claim 6, Arai et al., Lee et al., Takebayashi, Kitajima and Jindo et al., do not expressly disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area proximate to a hole is less than a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area not proximate to the hole. Koizumi et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a wafer placement table comprising through holes 7 for lift pins extending through the cooling base in an up and down direction (see, for example, paragraphs 0004 and 0045). Koizumi et al. further discloses that heat removal uniformity is deteriorated around the through holes areas, but that by varying the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel proximate the poor heat removal areas (such as an area around/proximate a through hole) so that a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in the area of poor heat removal is less than a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area outside the area of poor heat removal, heat removal is controlled so that non-uniformity of the heat removal can be eliminated (see, for example, Figs. 1, and 8A-C, and their descriptions, and paragraphs 0004 and 0045-0047, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Arai et al. modified by Lee et al. or Takebayashi or Kitajima or Jindo et al., so that the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area proximate to a hole extending through the cooling base in an up and down direction is less than a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area not proximate to the hole because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently control heat removal so that non-uniformity of the heat removal can be eliminated and thereby the apparatus and the method to be perform within the apparatus can be optimize.
Regarding the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area proximate to the hole being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel in an area not proximate to the hole, a person skilled in the art can make reasonable adjustments according to practical needs, which is easy to do for a person skilled in the art without the need for creative labor and without obtaining an unexpected technical effect of the claimed limitation. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired heat removal/refrigerant flow, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,891 in view of Arai et al., JP 2001-156042.
Claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,891 disclose the claimed wafer placement table except for the width of the refrigerant flow channel being variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel, and the claimed cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part (being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part). With respect to the width of the refrigerant flow channel being variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention clearly discloses that the adjustment of the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel of the instant invention can be done by adjusting either the height or the width of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that adjusting either the width or the height of the refrigerant flow channel would provide the same desired results. This notwithstanding, Arai et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a refrigerant flow channel having a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at a most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant outlet flow channel is less than the cross-sectional area at a most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant inlet flow channel, wherein a height of the refrigerant flow channel is constant and a width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, Figs. 3-5 and their descriptions, especially, paragraphs 0006/0012/0018/0022/0024, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
202
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerant flow channel of the apparatus of claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,891, so that the width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable alternate configuration for effectively and efficiently provide uniform wafer temperature and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Regarding the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part, a person skilled in the art can make reasonable adjustments according to practical needs, which is easy to do for a person skilled in the art without the need for creative labor and without obtaining an unexpected technical effect of the claimed limitation. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired heat removal/refrigerant flow, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 7-8, it should be noted that Arai et al. discloses that the refrigerant flow channel is formed in a zig-zag or a spiral shape in plan view (see, for example, Fig. 4); and wherein the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel continuously reduces at a constant gradient or in a stepwise manner (see, for example, Fig. 3). Therefore, the apparatus of claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,891 modified by Arai et al. would comprise the claimed configuration.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,527 in view of Arai et al., JP 2001-156042.
Claims 1-6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,527 disclose the claimed wafer placement table except for the width of the refrigerant flow channel being variable and the claimed cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part (being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part). With respect to the width of the refrigerant flow channel being variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention clearly discloses that the adjustment of the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel of the instant invention can be done by adjusting either the height or the width of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that adjusting either the width or the height of the refrigerant flow channel would provide the same desired results. This notwithstanding, Arai et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a refrigerant flow channel having a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at a most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant outlet flow channel is less than the cross-sectional area at a most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant inlet flow channel, wherein a height of the refrigerant flow channel is constant and a width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, Figs. 3-5 and their descriptions, especially, paragraphs 0006/0012/0018/0022/0024, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
202
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerant flow channel of the apparatus of claims 1-6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,527, so that the width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable alternate configuration for effectively and efficiently provide uniform wafer temperature and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Regarding the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part, a person skilled in the art can make reasonable adjustments according to practical needs, which is easy to do for a person skilled in the art without the need for creative labor and without obtaining an unexpected technical effect of the claimed limitation. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired heat removal/refrigerant flow, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 7-8, it should be noted that Arai et al. discloses that the refrigerant flow channel is formed in a zig-zag or a spiral shape in plan view (see, for example, Fig. 4); and wherein the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel continuously reduces at a constant gradient or in a stepwise manner (see, for example, Fig. 3). Therefore, the apparatus of claims 1-6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,527 modified by Arai et al. would comprise the claimed configuration.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-24 of copending Application No. 18/365514 in view of Arai et al., JP 2001-156042
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-24 of copending Application No. 18/365514 disclose the claimed wafer placement table except for the width of the refrigerant flow channel being variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel, and the claimed cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part (being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part). With respect to the width of the refrigerant flow channel being variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention clearly discloses that the adjustment of the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel of the instant invention can be done by adjusting either the height or the width of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that adjusting either the width or the height of the refrigerant flow channel would provide the same desired results. This notwithstanding, Arai et al. discloses a wafer placement table comprising a refrigerant flow channel having a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at a most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant outlet flow channel is less than the cross-sectional area at a most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel nearest to a refrigerant inlet flow channel, wherein a height of the refrigerant flow channel is constant and a width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel (see, for example, Figs. 3-5 and their descriptions, especially, paragraphs 0006/0012/0018/0022/0024, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
202
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerant flow channel of the apparatus of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-24 of copending Application No. 18/365514, so that the width of the refrigerant flow channel is variable from the most downstream part of the refrigerant flow channel to the most upstream part of the refrigerant flow channel because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable alternate configuration for effectively and efficiently provide uniform wafer temperature and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Regarding the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most downstream part being 60% to 90% of a cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel at the most upstream part, a person skilled in the art can make reasonable adjustments according to practical needs, which is easy to do for a person skilled in the art without the need for creative labor and without obtaining an unexpected technical effect of the claimed limitation. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired heat removal/refrigerant flow, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 7-8, it should be noted that Arai et al. discloses that the refrigerant flow channel is formed in a zig-zag or a spiral shape in plan view (see, for example, Fig. 4); and wherein the cross-sectional area of the refrigerant flow channel continuously reduces at a constant gradient or in a stepwise manner (see, for example, Fig. 3). Therefore, the apparatus of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-24 of copending Application No. 18/365514 modified by Arai et al. would comprise the claimed configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagayama (US 2014/0008020) is cited for its teachings of a wafer placement table comprising a cooling base having a refrigerant flow channel.
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 LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
February 12, 2026