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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 06/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20, 22-25, and 27-29 are pending. In the amendment filed 06/16/2026, claims 7 and 26 were canceled, claims 27-29 were newly added, and claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20, and 22-25 were amended.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant made numerous amendments to the claims without indicating support for such amendments. The interpretations provided herein are made consistent with the instant specification in a manner that avoids an interpretation that would invoke new matter. The independent claims have been interpreted in light of the drawings to refer to the structures that meet the claim limitations as recited. In certain claims this has resulted in the same structure in different independent claims being labeled as a different of the arc-shaped channels or linear connecting channel. Applicant is kindly encouraged to explain where support for any future amendments may be found and, to the greatest extent possible, avoid using the same claim terminology for different structures of the invention in different independent claims or claims dependent from different independent claims. Examiner respectfully requests that applicant consider clarifying the claims so that structure A1 is only referred to as the first arc-shaped channel, A2 is only referred to as the second arc-shaped channel, A3 is only referred to as the third arc-shaped channel, and A4 is only referred to as the fourth arc-shaped channel in the claims to avoid introducing new matter to the claims or the appearance of introducing new matter to the claims.
The claim term “arc-shaped” is inclusive of any generally arc-shaped structure and does not require a perfectly continuous curvature.
The claim term “fan-shaped sector” is interpreted inclusive of an arbitrarily drawn section of the top surface that is less than the entire circular top surface.
The claim term “fluid inlet port” is interpreted inclusive of part 61 or at least a portion of a channel connected to the inlet hole (i.e. a portion of E1 connected to 61 in Fig 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim 10, 13-14, 17-18, 23-24, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 was amended to recite that the inner annular groove is overlapping the third arc-shaped channel. The inner annular groove (435 Fig 3) is shown overlapping the first arc-shaped channel (A1), note the third arc-shaped channel (A3). There is no support or other indication that the inner annular groove is to be moved to overlap the third arc-shaped channel (A3). Therefore, this limitation represents new matter. Applicant is kindly requested to consider amending the claim to refer to the first arc-shaped channel because this recitation would not represent new matter. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits the claim will be examined over the art as if the limitation does not represent new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendment is present.
Regarding claim 13, the claim depends from claim 11. Claim 11 as presented recites in line 13-17 that “the third arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and the fourth arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance”. For this limitation to be met, A4 (Fig 2) must be the fourth arc-shaped cooling channel and A2 or A1 (Fig 2) must be the third arc-shaped cooling channel. Note that A3 may not be the third arc-shaped channel because the radial distance from A3 to the center of the chuck (C Fig 2) is not larger than the distance from the fluid inlet port (61) from the center of the chuck and therefore cannot meet the requirement that “a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is … less than the first radial distance” if the first radial distance is the distance to A3. Note that while claim 11 does not represent new matter because A2 or A1 may be the “third arc-shaped channel”, claim 13 represents new matter because when A2 or A1 is the “third arc-shaped channel” there is no “third linear connection channel extending between a first terminal end of the third arc-shaped cooling channel and a first terminal end of the fourth arc shaped cooling channel”. Therefore claim 13 represents new matter. As indicated above applicant is kindly requested to consistently refer to each arc by the arc labels in Fig 2 to avoid new matter. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 13 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
Claim 14 represents new matter because it depends from claim 13 and because there is no support for the second linear connection (C2) channel having a longer length than the third linear connection channel (C3). In Fig 2 they appear about equal. The specification does not disclose the relative lengths and instead merely indicates in [0089] the size of the first linear connection channel relative to the second linear connection channel. Applicant is kindly requested to cancel claim 14 or amend to reflect the specification language. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 14 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
Claim 17 is new matter because the claim depends from claim 16 which recites “a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck, wherein the third arc-shaped channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and the fourth arc-shaped channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and [[a]]the radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance”. For this limitation to be met, A4 (Fig 2) must be the fourth arc-shaped cooling channel and A2 (Fig 2) must be the third arc-shaped cooling channel. Note that A1 must be the first arc shaped cooling channel because it is required to be connected to the fluid inlet (61) by the first end channel (E1). Note that A3 may not be the third arc-shaped channel because the radial distance from A3 to the center of the chuck (C Fig 2) is not larger than the distance from the fluid outlet port (62) from the center of the chuck and therefore cannot meet the requirement that “a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is … less than the first radial distance” if the first radial distance is the distance to A3. Note that while claim 16 does not represent new matter because A2 may be the “third arc-shaped channel”, claim 17 represents new matter because when A2 is the “third arc-shaped channel”, the limitation of claim 17 that “an arc angle of the fourth arc-shaped channel measured from a first terminal end of the fourth arc-shaped channel to a second terminal end of the fourth arc-shaped channel is greater than an arc angle of the third arc-shaped channel measured from a first terminal end of the third arc-shaped channel to a second terminal end of the third arc-shaped channel” is not taught or supported by the instant specification. The instant specification teaches that the fourth arc-shaped channel (A4) has an arc angle of 250-300 degrees [0041] and teaches that arc channel (A2) has an arc angle of 300-330 degrees [0038]. Because the specification as cited herein teaches that the fourth arc shaped channel (A4) has an angle of at most equal to the bottom end point of the angle range of the third arc (A2), the specification does not support that the fourth arc shaped channel (A4) has an arc angle greater than the arc angle of the third arc-shaped channel (emphasis added). Therefore, this limitation represents new matter. Applicant is kindly requested to maintain the claims directed to the arcs as labeled in Fig 2 and ensure that the claims match the text of the specification. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 17 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
Regarding claim 18, the analysis as applied to claim 17 remains. Claim 18 represents new matter because when A2 or A1 is the “third arc-shaped channel” there is no “third linear connection channel extending between a first terminal end of the third arc-shaped cooling channel and a first terminal end of the fourth arc shaped cooling channel”. Therefore claim 18 represents new matter. As indicated above applicant is kindly requested to consistently refer to each arc by the arc labels in Fig 2 to avoid new matter. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 18 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
Regarding claim 23, the analysis remains as applied to claim 13. Because there is no support for the third linear connection channel as claimed, there is no support for “the fluid inlet port is disposed between the third and second linear connection channels along a circumferential direction about the center of the wafer chuck, and the fluid outlet port is disposed between the third and second linear connection channels along the circumferential direction.” For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 23 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
Regarding claim 24, the analysis remains as applied to claim 17 above regarding which arcs must be which designation in claim 16. Because claim 16 requires that A1 is the first arc, A2 is the third arc, and A4 is the fourth arc, A3 must be the second arc. The fluid outlet port (62 Fig 2) is not recited as being within a radial span defined by the A3 arc channel and Fig 2 does not clearly and unambiguously demonstrate this arrangement because 62 appears to be at the same radial distance or possibly a farther radial distance than A3 and therefore is not “within” the radial span of the second arc shaped channel (note that fixing the claim to clearly require each arc channel to be the corresponding A1, A2, A3, and A4 will fix the issue because the outlet is within the radial range of A2). For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 24 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is new matter because the claim depends from claim 11 which recites in line 13-17 that “the third arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and the fourth arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance”. For this limitation to be met, A4 (Fig 2) must be the fourth arc-shaped cooling channel and A2 or A1 (Fig 2) must be the third arc-shaped cooling channel. Note that A3 may not be the third arc-shaped channel because the radial distance from A3 to the center of the chuck (C Fig 2) is not larger than the distance from the fluid inlet port (61) from the center of the chuck and therefore cannot meet the requirement that “a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is … less than the first radial distance” if the first radial distance is the distance to A3. Note that while claim 11 does not represent new matter because A2 or A1 may be the “third arc-shaped channel”, claim 28 represents new matter because when A2 or A1 is the “third arc-shaped channel” the limitation of claim 28, line 4-6 of “from the top view, the fourth, third, second, and first arc-shaped channels are concentric about the center of the wafer chuck and arranged in order along a radial direction away from the center of the wafer chuck” cannot be met because the arcs cannot be in the order as claimed, as explained above regarding claim the language of claim 11. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 28 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is new matter because the claim depends from claim 16 which recites “a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck, wherein the third arc-shaped channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and the fourth arc-shaped channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck, and [[a]]the radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance”. For this limitation to be met, A4 (Fig 2) must be the fourth arc-shaped cooling channel and A2 or A1 (Fig 2) must be the third arc-shaped cooling channel. Note that A3 may not be the third arc-shaped channel because the radial distance from A3 to the center of the chuck (C Fig 2) is not larger than the distance from the fluid outlet port (62) from the center of the chuck and therefore cannot meet the requirement that “a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is … less than the first radial distance” if the first radial distance is the distance to A3. Note that while claim 16 does not represent new matter because A2 or A1 may be the “third arc-shaped channel”, claim 29 represents new matter because when A2 or A1 is the “third arc-shaped channel” the limitation of claim 29 of “from the top view, the fourth, third, second, and first arc-shaped channels are concentric about the center of the wafer chuck and arranged in order along a radial direction away from the center of the wafer chuck” cannot be met because the arcs cannot be in the order as claimed, as explained above regarding claim the language of claim 16. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined over the art as if claim 29 is not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the amendments is present.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 4 and 17-18 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.
Claim 4 recites in line 4 “the first terminal end”. The claim recites “a first terminal end of the first arc-shaped channel” in line 2 and depends from claim 1 which includes “a first terminal end of the fourth arc-shaped channel” (line 19), “a first terminal end of the third arc-shaped channel” (line 19-20), and “a first terminal end of the second arc-shaped channel” (line 22-23). It is therefore unclear to which terminal end “the first terminal end” in line 4 of claim 4 refers. Consistent with the instant specification and context of the claim, the term is interpreted inclusive of referring to “the first terminal end of the second arc-shaped channel”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim to recite “the first terminal end of the second arc-shaped channel” in line 4 to remove any ambiguity about to which first terminal end the term is referring.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is unclear as to whether the terminal ends may be arbitrarily chosen or if the term requires that the arc shape may not extend beyond the terminal end. The use of “terminal” suggests that the arc shape ends and may not extend beyond; however, such an interpretation results in a new matter rejection as explained above in the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). If however, the term allows for the terminal ends to be arbitrarily chosen, then claim 17 may not represent new matter. Consistent with the interpretation of “terminal” in the other claims, the claim is being interpreted as “terminal” indicates that the arc shape ends and may not extend beyond the terminal end. Applicant is kindly requested to consider canceling claim 17 or amending claim 16 so that the third arc shaped channel may be A3 and will be supported by the specification and be clear as to the use of terminal.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites language which was added to claim 1 line 15-16. The claim does not add any additional limitations and therefore to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Applicant is kindly requested to cancel claim 2.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushkin (prev. presented US 2008/0017104).
Regarding claim 11, Matyushkin teaches a wafer fabricating system (Fig 1 [0018]), comprising: a process chamber (106 Fig 1 [0018]); a wafer chuck (90 including electrostatic chuck 20 Fig 1 [0032]) in the process chamber (Fig 1); a fluid inlet port formed in the wafer chuck (95 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version I(b) and XI below); a fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version I(b) and XI below) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below); a first arc-shaped cooling channel disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below); a second arc-shaped cooling channel disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below); a third arc-shaped cooling channel disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below); a fourth arc-shaped cooling channel disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below) and fluidly communicated with the first, second, third, and fourth arc-shaped cooling channels, the fluid outlet port, and the fluid inlet port (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below), the first, second, third, and fourth arc-shaped cooling channels being concentric about a center of the wafer chuck from a top view (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below), wherein the third arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below), and the fourth arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below), and a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below), and wherein, from the top view, the fluid outlet port is located within a radial span defined by the third arc-shaped cooling channel with respect to the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and XI below); and a fluid containing source (chiller [0033]) fluidly connected to the third and fourth arc-shaped cooling channels [0033]. Regarding wherein, from the top view, a shortest distance between the fluid inlet port and the fluid outlet port is less than a shortest distance between the fluid outlet port and an outer periphery of the wafer chuck, this limitation represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the inlet and outlet of the channel or the shape of the outlet line to bend toward the inlet instead of away from the inlet. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the outlet line. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
PNG
media_image1.png
432
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
780
1228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16-17, 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushkin in view of Forderhase (prev. presented US 2019/0326139), Watanabe (prev. presented US 2009/0168292) and Mine (prev. presented US 2020/0312684).
Regarding claim 16, Matyushkin teaches wafer fabricating system (Fig 1 [0018]), comprising: a deposition chamber (106 Fig 1) [0002]; a wafer chuck (90 Fig 1 including electrostatic chuck 20 [0032]); a fluid guiding structure (110 Fig 4B) disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B), the fluid guiding structure including a fluid inlet port (95 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version XVI) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B); a fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version XVI) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B); first, second, third, and fourth arc-shaped channels (Fig 4B, see annotated Version XVI) and a first end channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version XVI), the first, second, third and fourth arc-shaped channels each having an arc angle greater than about 180 degrees relative to a center of the wafer chuck from a top view (Fig 4B, see annotated version XVI), wherein the third arc-shaped channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B, see annotated version XVI), and the fourth arc-shaped channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B, see annotated version XVI), and a radial distance from the fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B) to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance (Fig 4B, see annotated version XVI), wherein the first end channel extends from the fluid inlet port (95 Fig 4B) to the first arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated version XVI), the first arc-shaped channel circumferentially surrounds the fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B) from the top view (Fig 4B, see annotated version XVI); and a fluid containing source (chiller [0033]) fluidly connected to the first and second arc-shaped cooling channels [0033]. Matyushkin fails to teach a showerhead in the deposition chamber and therefore also fails to teach the wafer chuck is positioned below the showerhead. Matyushkin teaches a different gas inlet structure (203 Fig 1). In the same field of endeavor of cooled substrate supports (abstract, Fig 1), Forderhase teaches a deposition chamber (130 Fig 1), a showerhead (120 Fig 1) and the wafer chuck in the deposition chamber and below the shower head (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matyushkin to include the showerhead and chamber arrangement of Forderhase because these allow for controlled introduction of gas to treat the substrate surface of the substrate held by the support of Matyushkin and because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (gas introduction showerhead of Forderhase) for another (gas introduction structure of Matyushkin) to achieve predictable results (controlled introduction of gas to the chamber). Matyushkin further fails to teach the gas inlet port in the wafer chuck and fails to teach from the top view, the gas inlet port is radially disposed between the first and second arc-shaped channels, a radial distance from the gas inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck and a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck. Matyushkin does teach a backside gas for heat transfer between the substrate and the support [0023] but teaches using mesas (30 Fig 3) and open space (32). In the same field of endeavor of a wafer fabricating system, Watanabe teaches a singular gas inlet (18a1 Fig 1-4) fluidly communicated with a plurality of orifices (18b1 Fig 1-4) for backside gas for heat transfer [0063-0064], and a gas source fluidly connected to the gas inlet port [0063-0064]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matyushkin to include the plurality of orifices on the top surface with a gas inlet port fluidly communicated with the orifices and a gas source fluidly connected to the gas inlet port because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (backside gas supply structure of Watanabe) for another (backside gas supply structure of Matyushkin) to achieve predictable results (supply of backside gas to the substrate supporting surface for heat transfer). Regarding the gas inlet port is radially disposed between the first and second arc-shaped channels, a radial distance from the gas inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck and a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck, initially it is noted that this represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the gas channel through the coolant. Watanabe demonstrates the gas inlet line (108a Fig 1, 18a Fig 3) travelling through the coolant channels (104 Fig 1, 14 Fig 3). Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, Mine teaches a gas inlet port (27c Fig 2, 6, 7, [0040]) formed in the wafer chuck and located between arc-shaped channels of the coolant line (Fig 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matyushkin to include the gas inlet line is positioned such that gas inlet port is radially disposed between the first and second arc-shaped channels, a radial distance from the gas inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck and a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck because Mine teaches the gas line traveling through arc-shaped channels of the coolant line and the specific positioning of the gas inlet and the fluid outlet represent mere rearrangement of parts.
PNG
media_image3.png
780
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Matyushkin teaches the fourth arc-shaped channel has a greater arc angle, measured from the fourth arc channel terminal ends, than the third arc-shaped channel, measured from the third arc channel terminal ends (see annotated Fig 4B Version XVI).
Regarding claim 20, in Matyushkin the first, second, third, and fourth arc-shaped channels are at the same level height (see annotated Fig 4B Version XVI).
Regarding claim 25, Matyushkin teaches the first arc-shaped channel circumferentially surrounds the second, third, and fourth arc-shaped channels from the top view (see annotated Fig 4B Version XVI).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6, 22, and 27 are allowed.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record of Matyushkin in view of Watanabe and Mine fails to teach or fairly suggest all the limitations of amended claim 1 and in particular the limitations regarding the positioning of the gas inlet port, the first, second, third, and fourth arc shaped channels positions as claimed and relative to the gas inlet port, the first, second, and third linear channels as claimed connected the required terminal ends of the specific arc shaped channels as claimed, and the fluid inlet and outlet ports being disposed between third and second linear channels along a circumferential direction as claimed. Additional art of record such as Holland (US 2006/0076109), Ko (US 2011/0154843), and Forderhase (US 2019/0326139) fail to teach all of the required portions of the cooling channel of claim 1 in combination with the gas inlet and the positioning of the cooling inlet and outlet as claimed. For all of these reasons, claim 1 is allowable. Claims 3, 6, 22, and 27 depend from claim 1 and are also allowable. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 but is not allowable due to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented above. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 but has not been indicated as allowable because it was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant is encouraged to correct claim 10 as suggested above to remove the new matter and bring the claim into condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to the claims overcame the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 112(b), but the amendments and new claims have raised new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 112(b) as explained above.
The arguments regarding Matyushkin as applied to claim 11 (reply p13-14) are not persuasive because the rejection is no longer an anticipation rejection and now relies on obviousness of rearrangement of parts or change of shape due to the amendments to claim 11.
The argument that Watanabe (reply p15-16) teaches a gas inlet port 18a1 at the center of the wafer supporting structure is not persuasive because while Fig 3 appears to demonstrate the passage at the center, Fig 4 demonstrates the passage is not at the center and is instead at an outer location.
The arguments regarding Mine (reply p15-18) teaching of the inlet and outlet positions of the cooling channels is not persuasive because Mine is not relied upon to teach these. It is noted that the gas hole of the combination as applied is inclusive of the gas being within the final arc of cooling channel and is not “outside the physical body of the chuck” as applicant’s arguments (reply p16) suggest.
For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of all of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0348813 teaches a cooling channel arrangement (Fig 2).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
