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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-9 and 12 in the reply filed on October 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims 13 and 14 are directed to a Species that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 13 and 14 are duplicates of claims 10 and 11 of Species B and are independent or distinct for the reasons presented in the Requirement for Restriction mailed August 27, 2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 10 and 11 be found allowable, claims 13 and 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
main body member in claims 1, 4, 5, and 8; and
Heat transfer member in claim 1-4 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically,
main body member is interpreted as being a body having flow path C formed in the upper surface as defined in Paragraph 0029 and seen in Figure 2; and
Heat transfer member is interpreted as being a body forming the top surface of the flow path C f as defined in Paragraph 0031 and seen in Figure 2.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112582330 A (‘330) as taught by Busche et al, CN 106463402 A.
330’ teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a substrate support comprising: a conductive base 111 having a flow path 109 through which a fluid for temperature control flows; an electrostatic chuck 110 disposed above the base 111 and having a support surface (top of 106) of the substrate 101 on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck 110; and a metal bonding portion (brazed joint between base and electrostatic chuck) configured to mutually bond the base 111 and the electrostatic chuck 110, wherein the base 111 includes: a main body member 108 having at least one recess 109 configured to define at least a part of a side surface of the flow path and a bottom surface of the flow path (Figure 1); and a heat transfer member 107 configured to define a ceiling surface of the flow path and perform heat transfer between the fluid for temperature control and the electrostatic chuck (Figure 1). ‘330 teaches that the main body member (base) 108 and the heat transfer member (cover plate) 107 can be attached by a ceramic adhesive. Busche et al teaches that a ceramic adhesive is an epoxy resin loaded with ceramic. Thus the ceramic adhesive of ‘330 reads on the limitation an adhesive (ceramic adhesive) is made of a resin material (epoxy resin) configured to mutually bond the main body member 108 and the heat transfer member 107.
Regarding claim 2, the heat transfer member 107 is made of a member whose linear expansion coefficient difference with the electrostatic chuck is greater than or equal to 0, and less than or equal to half of the thermal expansion coefficient of the dielectric layer which includes the range of 3e-6 or less.
Regarding claim 3, the heat transfer member 107 is made of a composite material of Al and SiC.
Regarding claim 4, the main body member 108 is made of the same member as the heat transfer member 107.
Regarding claim 5, the main body member 108 is made of AlSiC which is an Al alloy.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, teaches the metal bonding portion is a brazing metal SnAg having a bonding temperature of 260°C which is 700°C or lower.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112582330 A (‘330), in view of Busche et al, CN 106463402 A.
Regarding claim 1, ‘330 teaches a substrate support comprising: a conductive base 111 having a flow path 109 through which a fluid for temperature control flows; an electrostatic chuck 110 disposed above the base 111 and having a support surface (top of 106) of the substrate 101 on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck 110; and a metal bonding portion (brazed joint between base and electrostatic chuck) configured to mutually bond the base 111 and the electrostatic chuck 110, wherein the base 111 includes: a main body member 108 having at least one recess 109 configured to define at least a part of a side surface of the flow path and a bottom surface of the flow path (Figure 1); and a heat transfer member 107 configured to define a ceiling surface of the flow path and perform heat transfer between the fluid for temperature control and the electrostatic chuck (Figure 1). ‘330 teaches that the main body member (base) 108 and the heat transfer member (cover plate) 107 can be attached by a ceramic adhesive.
‘330 differs from the present invention in that ‘330 does not teach that the ceramic adhesive is made of a resin material.
Busche et al teaches a ceramic adhesive made of an epoxy resin loaded with ceramic.
The motivation for replacing the generic ceramic adhesive of ‘330 with the ceramic adhesive made of a resin material of Busche et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent ceramic adhesive as taught by Busche et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the generic ceramic adhesive of ‘330 with the ceramic adhesive made of a resin material of Busche et al.
Regarding claim 2, ‘330 teaches the heat transfer member 107 is made of a member whose linear expansion coefficient difference with the electrostatic chuck is greater than or equal to 0, and less than or equal to half of the thermal expansion coefficient of the dielectric layer which includes the range of 3e-6 or less.
Regarding claim 3, ‘330 teaches the heat transfer member 107 is made of a composite material of Al and SiC.
Regarding claim 4, ‘330 teaches the main body member 108 is made of the same member as the heat transfer member 107.
Regarding claim 5, ‘330 teaches the main body member 108 is made of AlSiC which is an Al alloy.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, ‘330 teaches the metal bonding portion is a brazing metal SnAg having a bonding temperature of 260°C which is 700°C or lower.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112582330 A (‘330) and Busche et al, CN 106463402 A, as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Hausmann et al, TW 452916 B.
‘330 and Busche et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach a contact band configured to electrically connect the main body member and the heat transfer member.
Hausmann et al teaches the use of a contact band 155 configured to electrically connect an RF cables 415a, 415b and contact housing 502.
The motivation for connecting the main body member and the heat transfer member of ‘330 and Busche et al with a contact band is to provide better electrical connection between the body member and heat transfer member as taught by Hausmann et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to connect the main body member and the heat transfer member of ‘330 and Busche et al with a contact band as taught by Hausmann et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112582330 A (‘330) and Busche et al as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Haga, US 20150027637 A1.
‘330 and Busche et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the substrate support of ‘330 and Busche et al is placed in a processing chamber with a gas supply and a plasma generator.
Haga teaches a processing chamber 77 configured to define a processing space PS of the substrate W; a substrate support 12 which is disposed in the processing space PS; a gas supply 74 configured to supply a processing gas into the processing space PS; and a plasma generator 12, 52 configured to generate plasma in the processing space PS from the processing gas.
The motivation for placing the substrate support of ‘330 Busche et al in the processing chamber of Haga is to provide the processing chamber in which the substrate support can be used as required by ‘330 and Busche et al to function but not disclosed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to place the substrate support of ‘330 and Busche et al in the processing chamber of Haga.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the first argument directed to claim 1 that ‘330 teaches away from the use of a resin adhesive, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
‘330 does not teach away from the use of a resin. The problems noted by ‘330 on page 2 first full paragraph and cited by the Applicant are caused by a silicone gel. A silicon gel is not a resin. Thus ‘330 does not teach away from the use of a resin.
‘330 also teaches that the joints can be made by braze welding or ceramic adhesive. Ceramic adhesives can include resins as a binder to hold the ceramic material together. Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, ‘330 does suggest the use of a resin by suggesting the use of a ceramic adhesive.
In regard to the second argument directed to claim 1, directed to ‘641 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on ‘641 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regard to the third argument directed to claim 1 that the resin adhesive in the present claims serves a unique thermal isolation function not present in either reference, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
No such function is claimed.
The ceramic adhesive of ‘303 and Busche et al serves the same function. Such function is inherent in the thermal resistance of the ceramic and the resin.
In regard to the first argument directed to claim 8 that the contact ban in Hausmann is structurally and functionally distinct, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
No structure of the band is claimed. Thus there is no structural distinction.
The function of both bands is to improve the electrical connection of two parts. Thus the bands are functionally the same.
In regard to the second argument directed to claim 8 that ‘330 does not present the problem that the contact band is designed to solve, the Examiner disagrees. The ceramic adhesive of ‘303 or the ceramic adhesive made of a resin of Busche et al both provide a conductivity gap. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art trying to conduct electricity through the support would be motivated to provide a band to connect the main body member and the heat transfer member and bridge the gap caused by the ceramic or ceramic and resin layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g)) JP 2005210039 A, WO2014151975, JP 2017-126641A, JP 2017-126640 A, and JP 2013-172013A could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103.
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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights