DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (8/29/2022), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In response to Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 9/13/2024, claims 1-17 were examined in a Non-Final on 11/15/2024. Claims 18-20 were withdrawn. A Final office action in response to Applicant’s submission of 2/18/2025 was mailed on 3/6/2025. Claims were amended and new claims added so that pending claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-17 and 21-22 were examined. A second Non-Final in response to a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was mailed on 7/29/2025. Applicant's submission filed on 6/6/2025 was entered. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 16-17 and 23-27 were examined.
This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 10/29/2025. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10-11, 16, 24 and 27 were amended. Claims 12, 23 and 25-26 were cancelled. Therefore claims 1-4, 6-11, 16-17, 24 and 27 are being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments are related to the latest amendment dated 10/29/2025. Applicant argues that in Tomoyoshi reference flow rates, pressures or ratios are first established for a process and these ratios are unchanging within a process. Applicant is mischaracterizing para 53.
It is noted that ratio change helps to change conductivity so as to bring the temperature of the substrate to a target temperature. If the target temperature is changed so that it is different from the current temperature the controller may decide to change the ratio in order to change conductivity and change the actual temperature to target temperature. As discussed in 112 rejection there is no support and cannot be a support for continuous total flow but rather pressure control, so as to modify thermal conductivity of the enclosed space by changing the ratio of gases in that enclosed space. The fact that the control system determines a reference and implements it does not change the fact that change is implemented. Therefore, Tomoyoshi does disclose changing ratio of gases among several control topologies disclosed.
Sato discloses the same as in the following:
“by introducing a mixed gas consisting of multiple types of gas into the contact surface or space between the stage and the workpiece and changing the gas mixing ratio, the heat transfer rate between the workpiece and the stage is changed”
“For example, a mixed gas of argon (Ar) gas and He gas is used, and by changing the mixing ratio of the two, cooling gases having different thermal conductivities are generated. When this mixed gas of Ar gas and He gas is used as the cooling gas, the temperature in the wafer surface is monitored by the contact thermometer 13, and the semiconductor wafer 6 is opened from the first opening 8 based on the result. The mixing ratio of the cooling gas introduced into the back surface of the gas is individually controlled. A mixed gas having a high He gas ratio is introduced into a portion having a high temperature in the wafer surface, and a mixed gas having a low He gas ratio is introduced into a portion having a low temperature. Thereby, the in-plane temperature of the semiconductor wafer 6 is made uniform.”
Applicant’s similar, arguments related to claim 10 are also not persuasive for the same reason.
As discussed in sec 112 rejection, the temperature of refrigerant and gas ratio both affect the rate of cooling. The temperature and flow of refrigerant as taught in Nonaka et al determines how fast heat is removed from the substrate holder while the ratio of gas in the enclosed space behind the substrate determines how fast the heat is removed from the substrate to the substrate holder. Therefore, the two are complementary but independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 16-17, 24 and 27 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10-11, 16, 24 and 27 were amended by the submission dated 10/29/2025. The amendments to claims 1 and 10 are substantial. Applicants submission however, does not show where in the specification those amendments are supported.
For example, claims 1 and 10 includes the term “temperature control value”. This term is not defined in the specification and the context does not make it clear.
Claim 1 further, recites keeping the total flow constant (without changing) while changing the ratio of first and second gases in the mixed gas. This does not seem to be supported by the specification. The specification appears to state that the pressure of mixed gases may be maintained at a predetermined value (See Pub. at Para 32 and other places). This however, does not mean that the total flow remains unchanged. It is noted that flow of gases could always vary to compensate for the leak while keeping pressure constant. It is noted that flow is into a pocket below the substrate and fully enclosed and should not allow any flow into it except for a leak from the pocket.
In claim 10, the limitation “a flow rate control unit configured to change a flow rate ratio of the first and second gases in the first mixed gas without changing the total flow rate of the first mixed gas and a flow rate ratio of the first and second gases in the second mixed gas without changing the total flow rate of the second mixed gas control the first flow rate adjustment unit and the second flow rate adjustment unit based on the acquired first and second output temperature of the refrigerants” is unclear.
It is noted that the first part of this limitation regarding total flow rate, is similar to the one discussed above in relation to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason.
The second part regarding the flow control rate being based on the acquired first and second output temperature of the refrigerants is also not supported by the specification. The specification teaches that temperature of the substrate could be controlled by controlling conductivity through ratio control and using refrigerant for actual cooling. Thus, both actions work simultaneously and together, refrigerant providing actual cooling and ratio providing rate of cooling by controlling conductivity. There is however, nothing in the specification to suggest that the gas ratio is based upon refrigerant temperature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricki Tomoyoshi (US 20040123805) in view of Qiao et al (US 6322716) and Mineichi Sato (JP 2006344670).
Ricki Tomoyoshi discloses a plasma treatment apparatus (Fig 1).
a holding unit configured to hold a substrate during a plasma treatment process (Fig 3, 13);
a gas supply unit configured to supply a mixed gas, including a first gas and a second gas, to a gas supply space formed between the substrate and the holding unit (15, 16);
a flow rate adjustment unit configured to change a flow rate of each of the first and second gases (15A, 16A);
a flow rate control unit (Controller 21) configured to control the flow rate adjustment unit during the plasma treatment process to change a relative flow rate of the first and second gases to control a temperature of the substrate (Para 36). It is noted that since the controller can control the gas ratio it could control from 0% to 100% of either He gas or Ar gas or any amount in between.
Therefore, it controls between a first relative flow rate in which the flow rate of the first gas is larger than the flow rate of the second gas and a second relative flow rate in which the flow rate of the second gas is larger than the flow rate of the first gas;
Ricki Tomoyoshi discloses a temperature sensor (Para 28) and depending upon the detected temperature and target temperature, controls the flow and ratio of He and Ar (See para 48-53 and 57). Ricki Tomoyoshi thus, discloses temperature control of the substrate through the holding unit treating as a single unit and configured to calculate a temperature deviation value being a difference between a measured temperature from the temperature sensor and a target temperature value for the substrate (Para 52).
Rick Tomoyoshi does not disclose support units creating partitioned regions of gas supply space.
Qiao et al disclose inner and outer partitioned regions with independent cooling gases (See Fig 1, 145 and 148 and description in Col 8 line 65- Col 9 line 26).
Since each region could therefore be controlled independently, it would have been obvious to apply mix gases in predetermined flow and ratio to each or any region according to the teaching of Qiao.
As discussed, Tomoyoshi discloses the holding unit as a unitary element, it does not state that the temperature sensors are plural, being dedicated at least one to each region.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to have independent temperature control of each region to have at least one temperature sensor per region. Further, this would only be a duplication of parts which has been established as being obvious.
Additionally, Mineichi Sato more explicitly discloses substrate temperature acquisition using plurality of substrate temperature sensors contacting the backside of the substrate (Fig 2, 13 and abstract) and controlling region wise temperature by controlling cooling gas in a feedback loop. Cooling gas could be a mixed gas whose ratio could be controlled to take advantage of different conductivities. The temperature control includes flow rate of refrigerant as well as cooling gas.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have plurality of sensors in Tomoyoshi to have a regional detection and control of temperature substrate which would be more uniform.
Regarding the amendment dated 10/29/2025, both first and second gases are disclosed by Qiao and Sato. The control system taught in Tomoyoshi and Sato is applicable to any number of independent zones. Regarding temperature sensors, Sato discloses temperature sensors 13 in opening 9 for peripheral region associated with cooling gas for peripheral region through opening 8. Similarly, temperature sensor and gas control for central region is also disclosed (See Fig 4). The term temperature control value for this examination is interpreted as representing target temperature compared to actual temperature. As discussed above, the difference of actual temperature sensed from the sensor and the target temperature the flow and pressure of gases are controlled to get to target temperature. There are several control topologies discussed by Tomoyoshi including the one where gases could be independently controlled according to calculated ratio (Para 36). Since such control could be duplicated as being obvious from Qiao and Sato, having independent control of each region would have been obvious.
Therefore, the limitation of “calculate a first temperature deviation value for the first region, the first temperature deviation value being a difference between a measured temperature from the first substrate temperature sensor in a position corresponding to the first region and a target temperature value for the substrate” for each region in order to control cooling gas mixture is disclosed by the teaching as described above.,
Regarding claim 2 Ricki Tomoyoshi in addition to cooling gas discloses refrigerant circulation in the holding unit (4A). The fluid is a coolant (para 29-30) so that temperature from (-10 to 70) degrees could be obtained (Para 41). Sato also discloses refrigerant circulation where refrigerant temperature and flow are controlled.
Regarding claim 4 the holding unit in Tomoyoshi is an electrostatic chuck (Fig 3 and para 24).
Claims 6-9 are disclosed in the description of Rick Tomoyoshi.
Regarding claim 27, the claim of maintaining total flow constant and changing ratio could be controlled as in Para 36 and 39. Also since any flow is capable of being controlled independently total flow or flow ratios could be controlled independently. Control of gas ratio and independent flow of plurality of gases is disclosed by Sato also. Therefore, total gas and ratio could be done in both Rick Tomoyoshi and Sato.
Claims 3, 10-11, 16-17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricki Tomoyoshi (US 20040123805) in view of Qiao et al (US 6322716), Mineichi Sato (JP 2006344670) and Nonaka et al (US 20090118872).
Regarding claim 3 Tomoyoshi discloses plurality of gases but not plurality of refrigerants.
Regarding claim 10 Ricki Tomoyoshi and Sato disclose gas and refrigerant based control of cooling but Nonaka et al disclose cooling based on refrigerant more explicitly and detailed.
Nonaka et al disclose an electrostatic chuck with plurality of coolant circulation paths with each path having the possibility of a mixture of fluids (See Fig 2A and plural paths in Fig 3A and Fig 3B). This allows precise temperature control by controlling the mixing ratio (para 5).
Further, Nonaka et al (Fig 4) disclose pre-passage temperature sensor (TSi) and output temperature sensor (TSo) for each system and similarly detection of difference of temperature at the heat exchanger to perform temperature control in feedback (Para 65) by using mixed flow or individual flow.
Regarding the latest amendment, the claim requires the change of temperature per unit time as being Temperature difference multiplied by velocity and divided by length as below.
Δ T= ((To – Ti) x velocity) / length = (To – Ti)/ time, since velocity/length = 1/time
Therefore, the claim appears to require that “temperature change value” is controlled to a predetermined value.
Nonaka teaches adjustment of flow that the flow rate which depends upon this change value (Para 70-77 and Fig 4 and flow chart of Fig 5).
In this regard it is noted one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an increase in “temperature change value” represents rising temperature or holding unit getting hotter. Therefore, calling for increase of coolant would be obvious. Therefore, although velocity sensor is not disclosed, flow rate with differential measurement of temperature would be an alternative as providing the same information.
It was held that 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have such a coolant arrangement for additional control of chuck and substrate.
Regarding the amendment dated 10/29/2025, both first and second gases are disclosed by Qiao and Sato. The control system taught in Tomoyoshi and Sato is applicable to any number of independent zones. As discussed above, the difference of actual temperature sensed from the sensor and the target temperature the flow and pressure of gases are controlled to get to target temperature. There are several control topologies discussed by Tomoyoshi including the one where gases could be independently controlled according to calculated ratio (Para 36). Since such control could be duplicated as being obvious from Qiao and Sato, having independent control of each region would have been obvious.
The limitation of controlling flow rate ratio based on temperature of the refrigerant as discussed above is unclear. It is noted that gas ratios and gas pressure are related and they provide thermal conductivity so that the cooling by the refrigerant could take place through it. Therefore, both refrigerant flow and temperature and flow and pressure of gases work together to allow control of substrate temperature. As discussed above Nonaka teaches independent adjustment of flow and temperature of refrigerant. Combination of this with independent control of gas flow and pressure would therefore provide ideal conditions in which to control substrate temperature to a target value.
It is noted however, that since both controls are disclosed in Nonaka one could see that a change in flow or temperature of refrigerant could change the speed of cooling and to a limited extent could be compensated by changing gas conductivity. Therefore, to that extent the gas ration in controlling conductivity could be made to be based on refrigerant temperature.
Regarding claims 11, Qiao and Sato disclose partitions or independent control regions.
Claim 16 pertains to mixed gas control with pressure. and is disclosed being by Tomoyoshi discloses being capable of such function.
Regarding claim 17 temperature of the substrate is disclosed by Mineichi Sato.
Regarding claim 24 adjustments to both regions are independent to each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tandou et al (US 20110132541) discloses coolant circulation (Fig 6) for a substrate holder and teaches measurement of coolant temperature for two regions.
Mori Masaji (8-17793) discloses gas cooling for two regions independent to each other (Fig 1).
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716