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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the bond layer have a perimeter in vertical alignment with the cooling bottom and ceramic top plate’s outermost perimeters, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2002/0050246 to Parkhe in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al and United States Patent No. 7381673 to Yokoyama et al is presented below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0050246 to Parkhe in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al and United States Patent No. 7381673 to Yokoyama et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Parkhe teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 2A comprising a cooling bottom plate 106,107, a ceramic top plate 105, a bond layer 232, 233 between the ceramic top plate and the cooling bottom plate, the ceramic top plate [0035] in direct contact with the bond layer (as shown in Fig. 2A), and the bond layer in direct contact with the cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 2A), wherein the bottom layer has a perimeter in vertical alignment with a perimeter of the cooling bottom plate (which does not include peripheral flange 204, which circumscribes a lower edge of 105 [0036]), as the bond layer connects the top surface 238 of the cooling base to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate, and a shaft 126 coupled to the cooling bottom plate at a side of the cooling bottom plate opposite the bottom plate as shown in Fig. 2A [0028-0061].
Parkhe does not expressly teach the shaft is detachable.
Sansoni teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 6B, comprising: a cooling bottom plate 603,608; a ceramic top plate 162 [0052]; a raised portion 638 between the ceramic top plate and the cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 6B), the ceramic top plate in direct contact with the raised portion, and the raised portion in direct contact with the cooling bottom plate (as it is formed by the cooling bottom plate); and a detachable shaft 110, 112 coupled to the cooling bottom plate by a plurality of bolts 615 at a side of the cooling bottom plate opposite to the top surface 638 and an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate [0033-0102].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Parkhe with its fixed shaft with the detachable shaft of Sansoni, as an art analogous shaft attachment to a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
Parkhe teaches the bond layer 232 is in vertical alignment with the cooling base 106, 107 (as shown in Fig. 2A), but does not expressly teach that the bond layer and the cooling base outermost perimeter is aligned vertically with the outermost perimeter as there is a .
Yokoyama teaches a substrate support with a ceramic top plate 7 Fig. 1A, 1B (Col. 7 lines 5-13), a cooling bottom plate 4 (Col. 7 lines 14-26), and a bond layer 3 (Col. 6 line 63-Col. 7 line 4), the substrate support having the same outermost perimeter for all of the plates and layers, as shown in Fig. 1A, 1B, by placing the lip inward of the bond layer and cooling base outermost perimeter.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the ceramic top plate that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a ceramic plate where the lip is within the outermost perimeters of the bond layer and the cooling plate, as expressly taught in the teachings of Yokoyama. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Parkhe teaches the ceramic top plate has an electrode therein but does not expressly teach that the ceramic top plate also has heater elements, and teaches the heater elements are in the cooling bottom plate, as shown in Fig. 2A.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate 126 Fig. 5A has heater elements 502 and an electrode 159 therein.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Parkhe with the heater in the cooling bottom plate and put the heater in the ceramic top plate Sansoni, as an art analogous heater in a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Parkhe teaches the cooling bottom plate includes cooling channels 236 therein.
In regards to Claim 5, Parkhe does not expressly teach the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves in a bottom surface thereof, as it only teaches one groove 206.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves 632, 204, 605 in a bottom surface thereof.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Parkhe with the teachings of Sansoni, as art analogous gas grooves. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 6, Parkhe in view of Sansoni teaches an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Parkhe teaches a cover ring 138 Fig. 1, but does not expressly teach the material of the cover ring.
Sansoni teaches a cover ring (on 153, not shown, 0039]) on the ceramic top plate, the cover ring comprising a metal or a ceramic material.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cover ring analogous to that of Parkhe out of metal or ceramic material, as taught by Sansoni, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 7.
In regards to Claim 10, Parkhe teaches the cooling plate is a metal cooling bottom plate (see metal alloy [0041]).
In regards to Claim 11, Parkhe teaches a system Fig. 1 comprising a chamber 100, a plasma source 122, 116 [0038; 0091] coupled to the chamber, and an electrostatic chuck/substrate support assembly 104 Fig. 2A comprising a cooling bottom plate 106,107, a ceramic top plate 105, a bond layer 232, 233 between the ceramic top plate and the cooling bottom plate, the ceramic top plate [0035] in direct contact with the bond layer (as shown in Fig. 2A), and the bond layer in direct contact with the cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 2A), wherein the bottom layer has a perimeter in vertical alignment with a perimeter of the cooling bottom plate (which does not include peripheral flange 204, which circumscribes a lower edge of 105 [0036]), as the bond layer connects the top surface 238 of the cooling base to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate, and a shaft 126 coupled to the cooling bottom plate at a side of the cooling bottom plate opposite the bottom plate as shown in Fig. 2A [0028-0061].
Parkhe does not expressly teach the shaft is detachable.
Sansoni teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 6B, comprising: a cooling bottom plate 603,608; a ceramic top plate 162 [0052]; a raised portion 638 between the ceramic top plate and the cooling bottom plate (as shown in Fig. 6B), the ceramic top plate in direct contact with the raised portion, and the raised portion in direct contact with the cooling bottom plate (as it is formed by the cooling bottom plate); and a detachable shaft 110, 112 coupled to the cooling bottom plate by a plurality of bolts 615 at a side of the cooling bottom plate opposite to the top surface 638 and an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate [0033-0102].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Parkhe with its fixed shaft with the detachable shaft of Sansoni, as an art analogous shaft attachment to a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
Yokoyama teaches a substrate support with a ceramic top plate 7 Fig. 1A, 1B (Col. 7 lines 5-13), a cooling bottom plate 4 (Col. 7 lines 14-26), and a bond layer 3 (Col. 6 line 63-Col. 7 line 4), the substrate support having the same outermost perimeter for all of the plates and layers, as shown in Fig. 1A, 1B, by placing the lip inward of the bond layer and cooling base outermost perimeter.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the ceramic top plate that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a ceramic plate where the lip is within the outermost perimeters of the bond layer and the cooling plate, as expressly taught in the teachings of Yokoyama. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 13, Parkhe teaches the ceramic top plate has an electrode therein but does not expressly teach that the ceramic top plate also has heater elements, and teaches the heater elements are in the cooling bottom plate, as shown in Fig. 2A.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate 126 Fig. 5A has heater elements 502 and an electrode 159 therein.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Parkhe with the heater in the cooling bottom plate and put the heater in the ceramic top plate Sansoni, as an art analogous heater in a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 14, Parkhe teaches the cooling bottom plate includes cooling channels 236 therein.
In regards to Claim 15, Parkhe does not expressly teach the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves in a bottom surface thereof, as it only teaches one groove 206.
Sansoni teaches the ceramic top plate includes gas grooves 632, 204, 605 in a bottom surface thereof.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Parkhe with the teachings of Sansoni, as art analogous gas grooves. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Parkhe in view of Sansoni teaches an O-ring 619 between the shaft and the cooling bottom plate, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 17, Parkhe teaches a cover ring 138 Fig. 1, but does not expressly teach the material of the cover ring.
Sansoni teaches a cover ring (on 153, not shown, 0039]) on the ceramic top plate, the cover ring comprising a metal or a ceramic material.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a cover ring analogous to that of Parkhe out of metal or ceramic material, as taught by Sansoni, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 7.
In regards to Claim 20, Parkhe teaches the cooling plate is a metal cooling bottom plate (see metal alloy [0041]).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0050246 to Parkhe in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al and United States Patent No. 7381673 to Yokoyama et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0225652 to Tran et al.
The teachings of Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
In regards to Claims 2 and 12, Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama does not expressly teach the detachable shaft is a metal shaft.
Tran teaches that a shaft 180; 222 of a pedestal can be made out of aluminum, a metal [0023; 0012-0043].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a shaft analogous to that of Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama out of metal, as taught by Tran, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claims 2 and 12.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0050246 to Parkhe in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al and United States Patent No. 7381673 to Yokoyama et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0133258 to Miwa et al.
The teachings of Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
In regards to Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19, Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama does not expressly teach the bond layer is a silicone bond layer, an organic bond layer, or an aluminum foil or that the aluminum foil has a thickness in the range of 50 - 500 microns.
Miwa teaches a bond layer 23 or 25, which is made out of aluminum which makes a sheet layer of 200 µm/microns, i.e., an aluminum foil [0132, 0133; 0117-0255].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a metal foil in a substrate support analogous to that of Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama out of aluminum foil with a thickness of 200µm, as taught by Miwa, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of the claims.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2002/0050246 to Parkhe in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0039747 to Sansoni et al and United States Patent No. 7381673 to Yokoyama et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0111315 to Parkhe et al (hereinafter ‘315).
The teachings of Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
In regards to Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19, Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama does not expressly teach the bond layer is a silicone bond layer, an organic bond layer, or an aluminum foil or that the aluminum foil has a thickness in the range of 50 - 500 microns.
‘315 teaches a bond layer 550, which is made out of aluminum foil which makes a sheet layer of 200-300 µm/microns [0063; 0016-0088].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a metal foil bonding layer in a substrate support analogous to that of Parkhe in view of Sansoni and Yokoyama out of aluminum foil with a thickness of 200-300µm, as taught by ‘315, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716