DETAILED ACTION
This is a 2nd Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Lee’s gap pins are on a first heating plate on which a second heating plate is disposed and no suggestion that Kim’s support protrusion should be used to hold up the upper plate because Kim states that the thickness of the upper plate should be thicker to avoid damage.
The Office agrees that Lee’s gap pins are not disposed on a first heating plate on which a second heating plate is disposed. Lee’s support protrusions are for defining an air gap between the surface 531 and a wafer by structurally supporting the wafer. Kim teaches that the load of the wafer may damage the upper heating plate which is why they state that the heating plate should not be less than 5 mm. Kim’s disclosure about the upper plate’s thickness does not teach away the use of gap pins since it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to see that Lee’s support protrusion can be used to further support and reinforce Kim’s upper plate to prevent damage from the load of the wafer.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the 103 U.S.C rejection of claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang in view of Hashikura.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2012050255 A1) in view of Lee (US 2022/0413397 A1).
Claim 1. Kim discloses a wafer baking apparatus (heater for semiconductor, abstract) comprising:
a wafer heater disposed in the processing space and configured to support a wafer (laminated stage heater 100, Fig. 1);
wherein the wafer heater comprises:
a first heating plate (body 122, Fig. 1);
a heating resistance pattern disposed on a lower surface of the first heating plate (heating elements 110 under the body 122, Fig. 1);
a second heating plate disposed on the first heating plate (upper plate 124); and
a heat dispersion layer interposed between the first heating plate and the second heating plate (air gap 170, Fig. 1), and
having a thermal conductivity that is lower than a thermal conductivity of materials of the first heating plate and the second heating plate (the body and upper plate is made of quartz which has a higher thermal conductivity than air, page 8, par. 2)
wherein the heat dispersion layer comprises an air gap (170), and
Kim does not disclose a chamber comprising a processing space, wherein the first heating plate has an upper surface on which a plurality of gap pins are arranged, and the air gap is defined by heights of the plurality of gap pins.
Lee discloses a wafer baking apparatus wherein the housing provides a space for the baking process (par. 81, Fig. 7), wherein the wafer is supported by support protrusions (protrusion 3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Lee and have a housing for processing the wafer and supporting the air gap with protrusions. Lee demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that a wafer baking apparatus will have a housing for that process to occur and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add support protrusions to hold up the upper plate.
Claim 4. Kim in view of Lee does not disclose the wafer baking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air gap has a thickness in a range of 5 um to 100 um.
Lee discloses a wafer heating apparatus wherein the wafer is supported by support protrusions with a height of 50 um to 100 um (par. 84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lee and have support protrusions holding the upper plate. Kim discloses that if the upper plate is too thin, the wafer’s weight could damage the upper plate (page 8, par. 5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add support protrusions to hold up the upper plate.
Claim 6. Kim in view of Lee discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wafer heater defines a plurality of heating sectors in a plan view (heating elements 112, 114, and 116 are placed in areas which are heated up, Fig. 1), and
wherein the heating resistance pattern comprises a plurality of heating resistance patterns which are disposed in the plurality of heating sectors (heating element is divided into multiple regions, Fig. 3, page 5, par. 5), respectively, and are configured to be controlled to heat independently from each other (the different heating elements 112, 114, and 116 can receive different heating signals, page 3, par. 5 and page 5, par. 5).
Claim 10. Kim in view of Lee discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first heating plate and the second heating plate comprise a same ceramic material (upper plate and body are made of quartz, page 8, par. 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (US 2004/0175549 A1)
Claim 5. Kim in view of Lee does not disclose the wafer baking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heat dispersion layer comprises a heat-resistant adhesive layer that bonds an upper surface of the first heating plate to a lower surface of the second heating plate.
Ito discloses using a heat resistant adhesive to join two ceramic surfaces (par. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Ito and use heat-resistant adhesive to bond the two ceramic bodies together. Lee demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use an adhesive to bond the ceramic bodies together.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashikura (US 2004/0244695 A1).
Claim 11. Kim in view of Lee does not disclose the wafer baking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second heating plate has a thermal conductivity that is higher than a thermal conductivity of the first heating plate.
Hashikura discloses a wafer heater wherein the heater has two heating plates, the first one is made of ceramic (2, Fig. 1B) and the second is a ceramic-metal composite (1, Fig. 1B), wherein the ceramic susceptor can be made of aluminum oxide (par. 49) which has a thermal conductivity of 20-40 W/(mK) while the ceramic-metal composite has a thermal conductivity of around 100 W/(mK) (par. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Hashikura and make the second heating plate have a higher thermal conductivity. Doing so would have the benefit of improving uniformity in the temperature of the object being processed on the holder (par. 23, Hashikura)
Claim 12. Kim in view of Lee discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first heating plate comprises a ceramic material (body is made of quartz, page 8, par. 2), and the second heating plate comprises a metal.
Kim in view of Lee does not disclose the second heating plate comprised of metal.
Hashikura discloses a wafer heater wherein the heater has two heating plates, the first one is made of ceramic (2, Fig. 1B) and the second is a ceramic-metal composite (1, Fig. 1B), wherein the ceramic susceptor can be made of aluminum oxide (par. 49) which has a thermal conductivity of 20-40 W/(mK) while the ceramic-metal composite has a thermal conductivity of around 100 W/(mK) (par. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Hashikura and make the second heating plate be composed of metal. Doing so would have the benefit of improving uniformity in the temperature of the object being processed on the holder (par. 23, Hashikura)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsieh (US 2015/0055300 A1).
Claim 13. Kim in view of Lee discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first heating plate comprises a ceramic material (body is made of quartz, page 8, par. 2), and the second heating plate comprises graphite or graphene.
Kim in view of Lee does not disclose the second heating plate comprises graphite or graphene.
Hsieh discloses a heat dissipation structure and teaches that a graphite heat spreader has a higher horizontal thermal conductivity so that it can quickly conduct heat in a horizontal direction to uniformly distribute the heat over the entire surface (par. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Hsieh and make the second heat plate graphene. Doing so would have the benefit of heat dissipation member can quickly and uniformly transfer heat across the surface (par. 10, Hsieh).
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20160020128 A1) in view of Hashikura (US 20040244695 A1).
Claim 17. Wang discloses a wafer baking apparatus (wafer heater, Fig. 1, par. 21) comprising:
a wafer heater (electrostatic chuck 100 with a heater, Fig. 1, par. 21) disposed in the processing space and configured to support a wafer (wafer W1, Fig. 1,
wherein the wafer heater comprises:
a heating plate (main body 10, Fig. 1B);
a heating resistance pattern disposed on a
a heat dispersion layer disposed on the heating plate and having a horizontal thermal conductivity that is greater than a vertical thermal conductivity of the heat dispersion layer (thermal conductive layer 60 has a lateral thermal conductivity that is greater than the vertical thermal conductivity, par. 51)
Wang does not disclose a chamber comprising a processing space and the heating resistance pattern disposed on a lower surface of the heating plate.
Hashikura discloses a chamber 20 comprising a processing space (Fig. 1) wherein a ceramic susceptor heats a wafer (par. 45) wherein the heating element can be embedded within the ceramic susceptor or placed on a lower surface of the susceptor (Fig. 1A/1B, par. 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hashikura and have a processing chamber and place the heating element on the bottom of the main body. Hashikura demonstrates that having a chamber for processing wafers is known in the art and that placing the heating element on the bottom of the body or embedding it within it are known and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select the configuration based on design specification.
Claim 19. Wang in view of Hashikura discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 17, wherein the heat dispersion layer comprises graphene having an orientation in which a horizontal thermal conductivity of the graphene is greater than a vertical thermal conductivity of the graphene (graphene, par. 25).
Claim 20. Wang in view of Hashikura discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 19, further comprising an adhesive layer (lower boundary material 62, wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of “adhesive layer” includes a layer that is used to bond 61 with the main body 10, Fig. 6) disposed between the heat dispersion layer and the heating plate (Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hashikura as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ito ‘763 (US 6465763 B1)
Claim 21. Wang in view of Hashikura discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 17, wherein the
Wang in view of Hashikura does not disclose that the heating plate has a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 5mm.
Ito ‘763 discloses a ceramic heater for wafers wherein the thickness of the heating plate 11 is preferably 0.5 to 25 mm (col 5, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Hashikura to incorporate the teachings of Ito ‘763 and set the thickness of the heater plate between 0.5 mm to 25 mm. Doing so would have the benefit of maintaining a balance between strength and heating efficiency (col 5, lines 10-20, Ito).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hashikura as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim (WO 2012050255 A1).
Claim 22. Wang in view of Hashikura discloses the wafer baking apparatus of claim 17, wherein the wafer heater defines a plurality of heating sectors in a plan view (different sections of the main body are being heated, Fig. 1),
Wang in view of Hashikura does not disclose wherein the heating resistance pattern comprises a plurality of heating resistance patterns which are disposed in the plurality of heating sectors, respectively, and are configured to be controlled to heat independently from each other.
Kim discloses a wafer heater with two heating plates and the heating elements (110) are disposed on the bottom surface of the first heater (Fig. 2), with a corresponding groove to each heating element, wherein there may be a plurality of heating elements 112, 114, and 116 which receive different signals (page 5, par. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Hashikura to incorporate the teachings of Kim and have a plurality of heating elements, their corresponding grooves, which heat different regions. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the temperature distribution (page 6, par. 5-6, Kim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 14-16, and 18 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.
The prior art of record does not disclose the heat dispersion layer comprising a plurality of heat dispersion patterns separated from each other and corresponds the plurality of heating sectors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights